Jump to content

Destroyer1717

Member
  • Content Count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-49 Unreal troll

About Destroyer1717

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Quebec, AU
  1. How would demanding the government to take an action be taking individual responsibility? It seems that Kappeler would be a K run against these types of affs.
  2. The first "K" doesn't need to be a K... It looks args ive used as case defense...
  3. Dumb arg, with strategic benefits. But 2 ways the surprised aff should be able to create offense. 1. More likely, less link to the net benefit, is heg good. We need to be consider the united states, the nation, the ruler of the world. And imperialism good and that shit. The aff, if it links to the net benefit, probably has a productive goal that would be furthered by an exceptionalist understanding of the United States. Also, you could frame it as the US or the EU, read some EU heg bad, and try to put some spin. 2. Grammar. I don't think you can say US without the "the," and impact that. Given that your opponents won't be able to win uniqueness or a sizable link to their net benefit, and you control the 2AR impact calculus, you just need to phrase the grammatical impact of not using the definite article. Harder to generate and explain the impact though. You could try to make this a plan flaw arg too. A friend of mine was hit with this while running a big-stick heg aff. He said the first one, but I forget what the other team's response was.
  4. These "complexities" are not entirely unrelated to unipolarity and the US's role as an international leader. Some won't necessarily collapse as a result of its decline, like increased globalization and democratization, partly as a result of the Internet, and the rapid development of nations like India and China. Others, like trade, may be implicated in the long term. A multipolar system, with its competing interests, would have a more difficult time enforcing regulations like that of the WTO that would the current unipolar system. In a multipolar situation, nations are more likely to be protectionist to prevent wealth from spreading to foreign nations, and to protect national industries in the event of conflict. Furthermore, under unipolarity, balancing is nearly impossible. Nations like North Korea or Iran may pose a security threat, but could never match our military strength. We would always destroy them in a war, and at best, nuclear ambitions could only deter other nations, not risk aggression. In a multipolar system, these nations might still not be able to combat the major powers, but the regional security concern increases. Iran can threaten Israel, their nuclear arsenals being comparable, and risking other nations becoming involved a la WWII. In unipolar systems, the risk of alliances is negligible, since it would take a vast majority of other nations to balance the United States, many of which are our allies anyway. This doesn't prove definitive causation, as Khalilizhad claims. I've always seen the card as an assurance that the risk of nuclear conflict is minimized under the unipolar system, rather than withdrawal causing nuclear conflict. The two are not completely different though, and in the longer version, he certainly explains why he believes that the international order is significantly unstable without the United States as leader. I'd also like to add that the arguments being made against unipolarity here also attempt to consider the unipolarity vs. multipolarity debate to try to determine under which the international order is stable, rather than looking at it as which is more stable. We should remember that the Bush administration was leaning toward one of the worst-case scenarios for a unipolar order, mixing in paranoia from 9/11, mismanagement and doses of irrationality on the part of the administration, and severe miscalculations. Consider Clinton unipolarity in contrast, as the more stable and probable scenario of a world under unipolarity. The US primarily acts as a defender, rather than an aggressor. Khalilizhad certainly falls into the former category, but the bulk of his argument and reasoning stands independent of his stances on policy issues. This is the same reason arguments about Heiddeger being a Nazi often fall flat. brorlob: we're discussing the tree though, i.e. the card. Sometimes you find a California Redwood in a forest of douglas firs. But just because it's in a forest of douglas firs doesn't mean it has sharp piny needles that don't fall off in the winter. But I wouldn't expect a libertarian to understand the benefits of attempting to solve problems, rather than just wishing a Magic Hand would fix them.
  5. yeah, seriously, brolob is a noob. i even hear he's a liberatarian.
  6. I fail to see how rogue states, low-level hegemons, and nuclear proliferation, coupled with the threat of the rise of competitors is less applicable today than 14 years ago. first, what warrants are you refering to that are better than thayer's. Second, what flip flop? purely informational questions, btw.
  7. The curse of the NDCA is that whoever wins it loses in the finals of the TOC. So we kinda know how that round will end. Or maybe they'll end the curse...
  8. Yeah, seriously, Khalilzad. Though the long version is better. Kagan and Thayer is a tricky debate, cause Thayer's more focused on "Heg solves stuff" while Kagan's "Heg collapse --> world explodes" Thayer also makes more of a general US influence argument, though still focused on military presence, while Kagan is solely about forward deployment of troops maintaining stability.
  9. well lex lost, i'm assuming from who broke. but i don't have more specific info.
  10. Am I the only one that saw this thread and thought "oooh, free-markets good/socialism bad k, that's interesting..."?
  11. ask them for one aff that meets all 8. make other consistency args. use a few cross-applicable args, like reasonability, t isn't a voter, etc. the multiple T args bad isn't as strong of an arg, but if you expand it with analysis about why it favors the neg (block, shells = short, no offense, etc.) it might work.
  12. This discussion seems irrelevant to me. Their generic applicability means that politics disads won't go away any time soon. And it's probably a good thing, cause we get to talk about cooler bills than the current topic, and keep up with current events, especially smaller bills that are equally relevant as the resolution. It's not just a coincidence that Congressional Digest often has articles related to politics disads... While I agree that politics disads might not make sense, and fiat might limit them depending on interpretation, the argument that such interpretations lead to solvency attacks is laughable. I'm glad to see it's dropped out of this thread.
  13. that's a decent debate distinction, but bubbles aren't created by pure government spending. they're mostly investor spending, which would be caused by government incentives that don't "pick a winner" as well. the dot com bubble, tulip bubble, housing bubble (to a more arguable extent) weren't initiated by government spending either, so winning that the government's incentives are key/alt energy inevitable doesn't n/u the da isn't easy to win truth-wise.
×
×
  • Create New...