Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About klub_

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/30/1987

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Location
    West Texas

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  1. what about this CP> Have the US do it in Mexico? B/c we all know Mexico needs a little...cleaning...and...dissenfecting. But who would do it? Mexican volunteers? Yeah right...who...American workers? maybe. B> make mexico nicer and maybe they'll stay there
  2. where do you debate? because here significance and harms are both stock issues...seperatly. Not only to cases have to prove the resolution, theymust prove that their case is is both harmful and significant in the SQ.
  3. thats not the only thing we ran. that was just one of the thing we ran. we had 2 DAs a lot of Harms Turns and I think some other on case
  4. In the semis round at yesterday's tournement, we went neg and ran into a case the talked about taking away Bush's Blanket war power so that he could never creat a detainment camp like the US did during WWII. But the problem for me was that their harms were all potential...(ex: "if Bush created one, then all these harms would happen.") They had evedense saying the Bush and Ashcroft were talking about it, but thats it. My question: Since all of their harms were potential, then the plan solves no problem. My thought send me to think that this means there are no advantages b/c the plan really didn't achieve anything. We said this and we won in a 2-1 but how do yall handle these kind of cases?
  5. on racial profiling, you may use the resonable officer test as an alternate to the ERPA.
  6. well....as of now, police don't have to have probable cause to search a vehicle with a dog at schools and perhaps even in other areas. But what if the case concentrated on school dog searches. Like at our school, the drug dog comes and everyone's locker and car gets sniffed, all without probable cause. I think it makes sense and carries warrent. I see where y'all are comming from on a general sense, but I think if you focused the case of schools, it would have more weight. You could have all of the advantages as the School Drug Testing case.
  7. in some debate circles, funding and enforcement(specificly identifying which government entity will handle it ie: The dept. of defense or thye department of health and human services) are essential and neg teams will rip you a new one on workability. Its different from other areas like NFL or TFA but its ours and I like it.
  8. planks are used to better explain the aff plan by breaking it down into specific areas: Mandates, Enforcement, Funding and Intent. It's not FX-T, and any neg who says otherwise is going to look stupid...especially to an judge that used to debate judge that used to debate=old school
  9. it would be hard to find such an internal link b/c they announced it just days ago so no one has had time to comment. But I always like the conservative backlash DA
  10. Has anyone been watching the news to see whats happening with Iran and thier radical leader's decision to accelerate their nuclear technology? There has got to be a DA come out of this. The UN security council is even worried and US just shat on themselves. Plus Iran is, or at least used to be, big buddies with China. So could you extend the China Human Rights Promo to include an Iran story? Or at least Iran implimintation?
  11. You just have to be careful and make sure that all of your planks are topical.
  12. because sniffing is more thourough than just searching. You know what I mean? They can do a better job because of their sniffing, so they need to have search warrents to better protect civil liberites. Do you see where I want to go with this?
  13. I've have been wanting to write this case since I heard about the topic last year. Why is it that dogs don't have to have warrents? Shouldn't they? I think so because if human police officers have to have search warrents then a dog with a much more invasive search should have one too. What do y'all think? It sounds a little rediculous but just stop typing a minute and think about it.
  14. next availible test case.
  15. I hate to state the blantenly obvious, but what about a crime DA? These sweeps are at least somewhat effective and there has to be evidense that says that they find drugs and weapons. Once you start winning the argument that says they are effective then you have to win the one that says that security is more important than their individual rights. . . which everyone has done. It obviously links better than the terrorism DA and you can spin off arguments from it. I haven't heard this case but I like it
  • Create New...