Jump to content

notyourlovertonight

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About notyourlovertonight

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/28/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rebudo
  • Biography
    Male/16 2nd Year, Enjoys Writing, video games, a good story, a good arguement, and a teenager who needs his caffiene.
  • Location
    In perception detail, I live in this flesh cage called a body
  • Interests
    Writing,Playing,Talking, Debating, Philoshifying

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    not_belonging
  1. The goverment is doomed to go out of control with power, The power will sooner or later go to their heads and the world will spiral out of control. The american people need to stop this, we need to retain our rights, and we need to do something. The goverment needs a TIMEOUT!
  2. That definition has got to be the worst definition of Decrease Ive ever heard and if the Negative ran a T like that, Id argue that NOBODY considers decreasement to mean eliminate. I heard this. I gotta hear why this standard of Def should be accepted.
  3. Here's my question on the plan. By devolved, Do they intend to switch the powers from the federal govertment or Share the powers. If they intend to share, than is it technically decreasing the powers of the federal goverment or is merely extending the powers of to local state governments? Than it would be an untopical case, wouldnt it?
  4. If the inherency was that Bush aloud torture, than yeah in that case, it does take out part of the inh. But if thats the only inherency you have, than I would have agree that the case is untopical. Mainly cause the Inherency should be something that has to do with 'Detainment without charge' or ' searching without probable cause'. If its part of the inherency that lead to harms and/or adjs, than it yes, it would take out THAT part of the inherency. You'd still have to argue the detainment or search part of the inherency.
  5. I think its more like an adj takeout card perhaps. Ya know, like their plan solves for the detainment without charge, and if the people being detained were being tortured in their detainment, than surely they'll have an adj ( Or its considered part of Solvency) that torture will no longer occur. Basically the card could apply to almost any case stating torture as a harm. So if you were going on stock issues and On -case arguements, thats just a niffy thing to have against any torture evidence Status quo is fixing that problem now, Aff doesnt claim that adj as its going to happen without or with their plan, so You can flow that to neg side.
  6. There is a legitimate T agruement against GITMO, and its usually about how the plan intends to change the status. If the plan never mentions making some new policy against the president's ability to name people 'enemy combatants' than it really does just change their status. This only increases the goverments authority to detain people with charge and to give them their due process rights. So While GITMO is a favored Case, there are reasons t is brought against the case and its usually a legitimate reason that it is brought up. P.S. Ran Gitmo at 2 tournaments, so I know the issue involved.
  7. A Recent ( As in Yesterday, Central timezone) Newspost creates a great inherency arguement one can run against it. It shouldnt be hard to pick out it out.
  8. I Ran into the case. Its not necessary bad, its just rather unexpected. But its not so hard stuff to beat really. ( Or it shouldnt be ) Im not sure if Im aloud to explain what happened in the round ( On a forum, I cant remember) So Ill hold back what happened. But the case is rather annoying in my opinion
  9. Could someone please explain how a Space Aff would work? Just so I could hear the general idea behind it?
  10. One could still make the claim not because of the bill, it wont be tolerated, meaning if theres a claim then it will be investigated and if found true, than tried. Basically saying the status quo is fixin itself. Or trying to atleast. But I agree, signing the bill probably wont mean much in terms of GITMO. EX.We signed Geneva right? But I dont believe its being practiced thoroughly
×
×
  • Create New...