Jump to content

Hanover

Member
  • Content Count

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Hanover last won the day on March 6 2007

Hanover had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About Hanover

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Profile Information

  • Name
    willy
  • School
    Hanover
  • Biography
    straight.male.caucasian.skeet.
  • Location
    Norwich
  • Interests
    Debate,Football
  • Occupation
    Student/Debater
  1. Hanover

    Lakeland

    Do you have need for 1/2 additional judges? Me: Joel Butterly and David Mainiero are considering coming. Let me know.
  2. you are easily the most ignorant and crude individual to ever be 22 years old and posting on a high school debate forum. Why don't you go get caught masturbating on the toilet by your mom and cry when she tells you that you need to move out before she calls the police. Eat a dick.
  3. Because hearing about female K debaters gives me a raging clue.
  4. DDI = best camp ever. No competition.
  5. Who in this forum says in their plan text: The USFG will use ITS money to fund the plan? No one. thats why it is legitimate to have someone else give money to the federal government and then the federal government do the plan. It severs NOTHING in the plan text, because the federal government still funds the plan action. as for the funding offsets pic above: A. If your only means of competition is normal means, you will lose B. None of the evidence you would read to that PIC would say it is normal means, it would just say that cuts to RMA as a result of increased spending are likely. C. No specification in the plan text as to where money comes from and no c-x concessions means you are just clarifying my plan. Also - severance is not just severance. Like in this debate we are having, there can be instances in which there is a risk that the permutation severs, and that risk of severance needs to be weighed against the nature of the CP. Bangladesh - You said that the affirmative has to defend funding in the 1ac. So I say the USFG will fund. If i have money given to the USFG from someone else and then the USFG funds the plan with that money, where is the severance? The only instances in which it severs is if the 1ac says the USFG Will provide its own money, which no one says.
  6. Yes, there are cards saying the courts should overturn DADT. However, there is not a single piece of evidence which allows the affirmative to garner OFFENSE against an agent CP. For example, there is no unique reason why money from congress is better than money from the executive. This means there is no case specific literature and the affirmative is stuck with generics. thats why specification was so important last year, because there was a ton of agent specific solvency evidence. Also, this means we learn about DADT and WIC (which isnt topical) the entire year. awesome. That is also a substandard as to why your interpretation on T is absolutely absurd. Just because you think aspec should be a T debate does not make it one. Aspec is just a means of avoiding affirmative abuse in debate years where specification is accepted. Finally, I dont know where you debate, or who you debate for. I would like to state firstly that bringing your own personal experience into these discussions is almost always a bad idea becuase it encourages personal attacks. Maybe where you debate aspec is a more important issue, i dont know.
  7. aspec is not a T debate. Even if it was, im not sure how resolved or policy necessarily mean the aff has to specify. I can still interpret the word "THE" or the fact that the implementing actor in the resolution is the same as the one in the plan text, which makes the we meet debate kind of moot... also - when is that last time you saw a piece of evidence that money from congressional funding was key to solve an increase in LSA volunteers? The point is that there is zero literature on WHO should fund something. Which is why specifying your agent and thus allowing agent counterplans to be competetive is ridiculous on this topic because you would never be able to generate case specific offense. Honestly, this debate is kind of dumb, aspec isnt a viable strategy on this topic, period.
  8. this isnt true, and that isnt a double bind (sorry for the one liners, explanation below) - 1. the mayer 85 evidence (to which you refer) which says policy is funding just says a policy is the establishment of means for implementation and then requisite funding. Nowhere does it say it has to be the implementing actors' money. The permutation would still have the federal government fund it, it just uses money from the gates foundation. That doesnt sever the plan text or the resolution because there isnt a single piece of evidence saying that in order to fund, the USFG would have to use money already shifting through congressional appropriations. Hence, the permutation to have gates give the money to the federal government who will then do the plan, is completely legit and solves every iota of your offense. On a side note - none of your "solvency advocates" regarding previous fundings are relevant. Mainly, because they do not assume gates acting alone to increase people in the peace corps. They assume donations to the federal government to increase the peace corps. That means either the CP will link to politics (because the fed. will act), there is no solvency because gates doesnt have the authority to earmark funding for specific functions of federally regulated programs, or that the CP isnt competetive because the permutation above would be the same thing and fails to sever. The only way to run this CP-NB such that it avoids the permutation above (which is a deth knell to any other combination) is to run it with a politics net benefit that has a link not specific to funding. Seidenfeld, for example, though grossly generic, would mean the permutation still links to the net benefit given it is solely assumptive of the burdensome process of legislation. Spending DAs would be solved by the permutation becuase we spend outside money. That would mean the only thing that would have to be answered is private actor fiat and all the other generic abuse stories. However, this does entail defending that gates could provide money directly to the peace corps, while circumventing congressional appropriations (this is illegal by the way), in order to do the plan. This sets you up for several devestating rollback arguements (provided that they are carded) and theory arguements. Also - this means you have no chance of solving any perceptual arguements because you truly do not use any part of the federal government to enact the plan, and given that we are dicussing the peace corps - im sure the soft power debate will be relevant, given that both slabbert and kumar assume provisions from the fed, in order to show its benevolence. On another note - Jon Mei you are completely right.
  9. perm - have the gates foundation give funding to the federal government to do the plan. and thats all folks.
  10. The fact that the resolution specifies other branches of national service in it which would have no literature regarding who should fund them, there would not be resolutional basis, and even if there was, that wouldnt be sufficient to overcome the resolutional loss of five branches and all but two cases. Normal means isnt relevant and is a terrible standard for competition, but that is another debate. The resolution says USFG, which means if the plan text does as well, then they are on face topical. And its not to skew the 1nc, its because granting the 1nc the ability run CPs that the affirmative cannot garner specific solvency deficits to is a gross unbalancing of fairness. I mean seriously what would you say (obviously other than generic crap) to XO and Pres powers for any affirmatives other than wic and DADT? As for your question, I suppose its a debate, but the interpretation that you have to specify your actor for two affirmatives is gratuitiously arbitrary and therefore would likely lose. However, it is probably a good idea to specify agent on those cases, yes, even though aspec is still a shitty strat.
  11. No, i mean every single aff other than DADT and women in combat. like draft, end strength, air force, nasa, special forces, anything for any of the other branches....
  12. there is no reason to specify on this topic. If the literature has agent specific jusitications for plans, such as the civil liberties topic, then the aff absolutely has to specify.
  13. when do at large decisions come out?
  14. OMG OMG OMG ME TOOOOOO ME TOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...