Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Lamp


  1. The alternative is usually nonviolence. It's been empirically proven like 1000 times... MLK, Ghandi, the martyrs Archbishop Oscar Romero and the Chico Mendes; and three Nobel Peace laureates, Oscar Arias, Rigoberta Menchu, and Adolfo Perez Esquivel... Many more as well

     

    I'd run nonviolence over militarism any day, it's a stronger position.

     

    MLK didn't advocate total non-violence. He believed in self-defense. In 1959, the annual convention of the NAACP resolved, "we do not deny but reaffirm the right of individual and collective self-defense against unlawful assaults." King supported the resolution, explaining that violence "exercised in self-defense" was "moral and legal" everywhere. King pointed out that even Gandhi did not condemn self-defense.

     

    Ghandi didn't advocate total non-violence either, but even if he did, british withdrawal as a result of Ghandi precipitated more violence.

     

    As for your other examples, I have no idea who they are. Maybe that is just me being ignorant.

     

    As for when Violence has been successful, there are a plethora of examples. Violence led to American independence, Greek independence, and Swiss independence. It also kept the US united and then freed the slaves. Violence prevented Napoleon from becoming dictator of Europe, and prevented Hitler and Hirohito from becoming dictators of Eurasia. The threat of violence, including nuclear violence, deterred Stalin and the Soviets from conquering Western Europe. Violence ended the Holocaust, established the modern state of Israel, and stopped the Arabs from driving the Jews into the sea in 1948 and 1967. Violence removed the Ceausescu communist dictatorship in Rumania. Violence removed Afghanistan as a secure training base for worldwide terrorists in 2001. Violence kept terrorists from crashing United Airlines flight 93 into Washington, D.C.

     

    Not to mention Violence subdued the Virginia Tech shooter.


  2. I noticed that the ACT falls again on the weekend of Greenhill/Wake Forest, assuming they are the same weekend this year. I was wondering if any accomodations will be made this year to allow people to take the ACT as well. I know in years past rounds have started later at tournaments like EGR to allow people to take the test at local testing facilities. Just wanted to see what was up. Thanks.


  3. One little secret about word pics...

     

     

    No matter what word you use, the impact's inevitable.

     

    Whether you're trying to colonize africa or afrika with "development aid" ... you're still colonialist to the same people.

     

     

    sure, but the CP would win a link differential which impacted correctly is enough to vote neg.


  4. in my mind i think the best way 2 run this aff is more or less the way gbn runs it (their hege version) but changed a little like

     

    inh: 1.military is seeing a rediness crisis due to lack of personell

    2. dadt is discharging at a very high rate

    3. these are key people to rediness

    adv 1: heterosexism-1. dadt is the big cause of military homophobia

    2. -->societal homophobia

    3. worst impact

    4. heterosexism hurts readiness

    adv 2: terrism 1. dadt gets rid of linguist

    2. key 2 wot

    3. key to hege

    3. loss in the wot causes extinction

    adv 3: les bait 1. dadt causes les baiting

    2. causes patriarchy

    3. extinction

    4. key to cohesion

    5. key to hege

    adv 4: immunosupression

    1. dadt causes and hurts hege and spreads disease from military out

    2. extinction

    adv 5: hege 1. rediness snowballs kills hege

    2. BIG khalilzad

    3. brooks

    4. thayer

    solvency 1. no backlash

    2. causes an increase in people

    3. stops a decrease

    4. belkin ur studdies biased card

     

    i dont see why you need 3 cards saying you result in an increase in the # of persons serving.


  5. ...and alex is a seasoned, debater well versed in K's and especially Edelman.

     

    seasoned? What are you talking about? You act like he is a piece of meat.

    I think Rubaie is just as "peppered" in debating the K, or debating anything for that matter.

    If you're banking on a uniqueness claim against the child soldiers claim then you're probably not going to win a substantial risk of solvency because just because child soldiers exist now doesn't mean that you don't (a) at worst increase them or (B) at best, continue them which is a reason why you don't solve for this "violent social order"

    • Upvote 1

  6. That being said. Don't run F-22 and Nuclear Subs. You can only tradeoff with one thing. An end strength increase doesnt cost enough to trade off with a substantial number of F-22s AND nuclear submarines, and its even questionable if it trades off with a substantial number of just one of them.

     

    Plus funding was just appropriated for nuclear submarines so argument that "subs are on the chopping block" is not true.

     

    http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=486356f2-1fb8-4bc6-abfa-4e9b12be8d6c


  7.  

    The next is the Berlowitz 00 card talking about how the Armed Forces is committing racism in the form of genocide by disproportionately putting the non-citizens at the front lines and positions of mortal combat.

     

    The non-citizens have always been the best in mortal combat. The Asian dude Liu Kang's bicycle kick is sick and I'm pretty sure Subzero isn't from the U.S.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

  8. You're wrong about this. We do conduct tests still. We call them subcritical, because we don't cause a full nuclear reaction, but we still do it on (what some would call) native lands. Plus there is the mining for nuclear materials.

     

     

    I've read before that we conduct our tests underground now. Is this what you're referring to with the "subcritical" or is that something different?


  9. unless you run a disad with a specific link there's no reason the judge should reject every solution based on predictions. In fact, in a pluralistic democracy and economic system, the "goods" of state action have far outweighed the "bad."

     

    lol, like 2 ships passing in the night.


  10. Are you serious? There is no absolute truth and therefore we shouldn't evaluate the aff's impact? That's ridiculous. It's probably a good idea to predict scenarios and evaluate consequences. And you bite this just as hard - think about your impact. What Nooch described to me sounds just like threat con, not foucault. It's empirically true that certain things cause war. You have to bear in mind foucault was writing about stuff like the governemnt's control of knowledge about the fact that HIV was a disease. Foucault didn't think HIV was real. He was wrong and he died. Most people and modern science agree AIDS is real and it's probably good that the democratic government stopped it.

     

    Also subsumes means incorporates. "A global nuclear war outweighs a nuclear war between China and Russia because it subsumes it."

     

     

     

    see now you're justifying your methodology which is what the nooch said you weren't doing all along. his argument is just to win your impacts you have to win your methodology. your argument is changing, fortunately for the better. but fyi, predictions good alone won't win you the impact turns. you need to win the criteria you use to predict is good, which is what nooch was talking about above.

     

    i think you're misunderstanding the argument about methodology, it doesn't really have much to do with "absolute truth" just that the way you treat the problem a) can't solve the problem B) causes the problem.

×
×
  • Create New...