Jump to content

JamieDenning

Member
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About JamieDenning

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. JamieDenning

    NDT 2008

    in finals: who was aff/neg? strategies?
  2. anybody knows sides or what happened in any of the elim debates?
  3. i have a question: if raising end strength is the only way to be topical as an affirmative, under that interpretation, what about the SeniorCorps? you cant raise end strength on that, so you essentially rid an entire portion of the resolution. correct me if im wrong
  4. JamieDenning

    Harvard

    what did westminister win on? the framework or the case/poltics debate or a combination of everything? also, does anyone know what happened in greenhill v. mba or centerville v. westminister?
  5. what happened in Woodlands v. Greenhill and Centerville v. Greenhill?
  6. does anybody have descriptions of any outrounds? such as finals?
  7. obviously u havent done ur research, there r sum amazing India cards out there in context of the link/overcrowding debate.
  8. except the aff. would still win the biggest risk of increasing heg b/c the I/L ev. and the mpx ev. (Khalilzad as one example) all indicate troop numbers. plus, most end strength affs. have at least another ADV., meaning at best cp only solves one part of case, meaning you have to go for lots of defense/offense on the other(s).
  9. i heard that in finals ONW sparked. what did jenks go for?
  10. what happened in Westminister WS v. Hooch IS and in finals, Westminister v. Groves?
  11. is a floating pik just a criticism that solves the entire 1ac? for example, aff. reads their 1ac, neg. reads a K. in cross-x the 1a asks if the K solves the case, if the neg. says yes then its a floating pik correct?
  12. guys calm down or make your own thread about caldwell
  13. lets take the us-india nuclear deal politics disad as an example, if the neg. runs a nuclear deal good scenario in the 1NC and the 2AC impact turns by saying that the nuclear deal --> prolif., and the neg responds by saying that prolif. is inevitable, wouldn't it make sense that regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, the impact is linear, IE - passing the deal will cause more proliferation than not passing it? I don't understand how in some impact debates saying "x" will inevitable happen takes out the impact
×
×
  • Create New...