Jump to content

ggamer

Member
  • Content Count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ggamer last won the day on April 23 2005

ggamer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-15 Bad

About ggamer

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  1. This thread totally rocks and although my rep doesn't do anything, I tried to repping you all. Just one more favor please, can you upload all of UTNIF? I can only seem to find a part of plan 1, not all the six week files. Thanks!
  2. excuse my lack of clarity: i have homemade files and said camps from the national service topic
  3. if anyone has what has been put out by these camps so far, i'd be willing to trade let me know, i have home-made files from last year as well as most good camps (NU, MI, DU, UT, MSU)
  4. 1. Cost efficiency is more important than being unique. It's a question of weighing impacts - a cheaper tournament a) relieves stress, allows for more investment in other things like other tournaments and/or better coaching, c) arguably, helps combat the decreasing number of debate programs in the state. On the other hand, being unique just makes the tournament unique. That really means very little in terms of measurable benefits. 2. Being unique is solved by things besides double-panelling and managing the tournament in a hotel (in other words, use one judge with strike sheets and run the tournament in a high school to save money). The tournament is unique by the very LABEL of being the state, MIFA sanctioned tournament. It doesn't need to hold a special value in people's hearts about *oh so important* double-panelling. As long as people are winning the state tournament, it will be more important than other tournaments because it is the only OFFICIAL state tournament.
  5. Unless you read Heidegger, you're using this card WAY out of context. I'm guessing your evidence doesn't make any claim about 'ontological destruction,' meaning you don't access the internal links, as articulated by the rest of the book. For answering it, just read nuclear war doesn't lead to extinction, meaning there is a 'clearing through which we could re-emerge.'
  6. I'm curious and hope someone who debated that topic can answer. What neg team EVER would let the aff get away with that? The aff is literally not defending a stable plan. Consultation is inherently conditional because people can say no, and then the aff wouldn't be passed. I suppose the way the plan text is worded, it would be more like notification and passage anyway (i.e. lie perm), but that means that they still don't solve the competition link on the c/p --- making the phrase useless in their plan text. Summary: It's obviously put in to be able to perm the c/p, meaning my first paragraph is relevant. Moreover, and this has been expressed in previous posts, that's really just bad. The aff, in defending consultation, isn't defending immediacy of plan action. That kills negative disad links. Moreover, it's just straight up extra-topical, and I don't need to explain that (see above).
  7. that's pretty FX i know --- all cases on the topic are FX will be your answer. There's a simple briteline: does the passage of the aff's plan provide public health assistance? cases like sending vacines etc. meet this interpretation, any pull-out cases do not.
  8. Somebody mentioned Synergy went to the TOC. If this is true, and I'm sure my Texas geography is wrong so sorry if I missed a school, s/he goes to one of these schools (that I can pull off the top of my head at the TOC near Dallas): Colleyville Heritage Coppell Dallas Jesuit Greenhill St. Marks
  9. Just a note: this isn't a very high quality argument to make. At most, it is a reason to reject the perm. 3 judges in an outround at Ohio Valley ignored this argument even when the 1AR and 2AR conceeded it and the neg said it was a reason to reject the team (with warrants). I'm not saying you shouldn't make this argument, just don't overestimate its viability.
  10. If the seller is being arrogant, why purchase the product? Jeffrey can't contextualize the topicality of this aff beseides "its topical" and "Tommy is right on." First, let's look at Tommy's post: We can clearly infer two things: 1) Tommy hasn't read the evidence, he assumes there is evidence that says it helps a "health" problem 2) He concludes the case is extra-topical, since all the literature is written in the context of all of Africa Meaning, Jeffrey's extension gets him no where. Let's expound on it's un-topicality. The resolution calls for an increase of public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. So, Google 'Treaty of Pelindaba sub-saharan africa.' 195 results. Not promising, at all. Jeffrey comes up with this: So what? First, you haven't given us a plan text, we can't really assume anything unless you give a better description of the file. Second, if your plan text is in accordance with the evidence (a necssary pre-requisite if one wishes to avoid huge solvency deficits and simple analytics like 'your evidence is discussing something completely different than the plan, prefer the counterplan' etc.), this case is horrendously extra topical. It applies a policy to ALL of Africa. He's going to say that his evidence mentions SSA. Whoopy-dee-do. None of the evidence makes a claim that the treaty should only be ratified for those countries, or anything along those lines. The evidence says it would help SSA. Okay... Doesn't get you anywhere. Effects is another big problem. The resolution says increase the policy the aff establishes therefore has to directly provide public health asistance to SSA. This aff clearly dosn't meet that litmus test. It ratifies a treaty that, if succesful, will help prevent cancer, which is a disease. The aff will read evidence that cancer is a 'public health risk.' That's non-responsive. A 'public health risk' does NOT constitute a policy of increasing public health assistance. The aff has to directly increase to guarantee negative links to an increase and keeping an already HUGE topic limited down. Imagine a world where the aff could help to prevent any disease. Under the aff's interpretation, funding research for an HIV vaccine would be topical. Absolutely ridiculous. Moreover, this 'contextual evidence' that cancer is a public health risk doesn't address public health assistance. The evidence doesn't say 'allievating cancer is service to public health' or anything along those lines that would make the aff even slightly topical. It doesn't meet increasing PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE. It meets 'prevent cancer' or 'help decrease public health risks.' Mixing burdens is a good standard here. This aff isn't DADT (where 'good T debaters can win the T debate'), it's funding multilateral organizations on the UN topic. Don't sell a file unless you ARE willing to do the necessary work. This isn't extra, it's straight up necessary.
  11. Tomak, Are all these links on your customized Google Search Engine? If not, could you put them up? That would be awesome, then we could get direct access to all the pages in one search. THANKS
  12. "The Midwestern United States (or Midwest) refers to the north-central states of the United States of America, specifically Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin." -Wikipedia. Illinois - GBN, GBS --- not really that critical. Even New Trier isn't too critical. Indiana - again, not really. Iowa - ? Kansas - ? Michigan - The critique is one of the least accepted args w/in the judging pool. Minnesota - border critical, again, not really (see Wayzata). Missouriri - ? Nebraska - ? ND - ? Ohio - Def not that critical, Centervill may be, but not as much as CA SD - ? WI - not so much CA - critical. At the TOC, the teams from this area certainly run more critical arguments. My two cents. That very likely could be incorrect.
  13. Yeah, the fist fucking animorphics card is great. The best part is when, after talking metaphorically for three paragraphs, he says "There are no "metaphorics" here" lol
  14. keek_a_leek, toc_champ didn't win the TOC
×
×
  • Create New...