Jump to content

ireallylikeapples

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About ireallylikeapples

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. hey sorry this is a little late, i think you are right. BUT.... what if the impact to the disad (the disad that links uniquely to plan) prevented the perm from solving the CP. like...... Judicial activism leads to nuclear war nuclear war causes mass starvation (i.e. prevents perm from solving cp)
  2. Sorry if i am jumping into a convo that i know nothing about (which I am) this analogy seems flawed. in the first example, the disad, judicial activism, links uniquely to the plan (or so the neg will claim). However, in the second example, the DA links to the status quo (i.e. we are not eliminating homelessness now) but does not link to the plan. The plan does not do anything to produce the impacts. maybe you could expound upon this example, or make a new one? im not sure, just throwing it out there I thought of a good example for why agent cp's are bad. Scenario 1- normal agent CP Plan: repeal patriot act w/ courts Disad: judicial activism CP: repeal patriot act w/congress Scenario 2- what the agent CP justifies Plan: repeal patriot act with courts Disad: judicial activism CP: solve world hunger with congress. This shows how agent CP technically allow for horribly abusive CP's as long as there is a net benefit, or disad that links to the plan but not the CP
  3. Just wondering, does anyone know what this position is? i.e. what are the links and impacts, and how does it operate inside of debate? And for you smart asses out there, i already checked wikipedia and google and stuff, and i am just wondering how it operates in a debate round. thanks
  4. this da says that rights victories attract new litigants in 'hopes' of obtaining additional victories. but their hopes are hollow. whoa. who knew. i dont really know the mpx, i think it is that litigation undermines social change, in this case, an increase in civil lib. and the Sc is gonna kill it anyway, so it works as a trun of 'protecting civil liberties.' instead the aff is hurting civil lib.
×
×
  • Create New...