Jump to content

inklings

Member
  • Content Count

    564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About inklings

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1985
  1. inklings

    CEDA/NDT

    http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowPairings.aspx?ID=97
  2. I forgot to mention midterms. It might be hard to find conclusive evidence about who is going to win or not. But you can easily find cards saying why failure on domestic agenda means that dems will lose now. I think it is a very viable scenario, but requires a lot of research on link level.
  3. I think financial reform might be the best option. The problem with Jobs DA is that there is way too much opposition against the new bill that Reid proposed. Unless they find a way around that (there are cards about that actually, senior dems were meeting separately with other senators to get support for the jobs. I have also seen cards saying that Pelosi is working with dems on border to get them to vote), winning the uniqueness would be hard. I think the problem with START is that Russia wont agree to follow-on because of some missile problems that US had with Russia. I am also not sure if there is anything such as "START follow-on" bill in congress (correct me if I am wrong please). In order to win uniqueness for this DA, you have to win two levels of uniqueness, 1) congress will ratify the follow-on and 2) US-Russia will reach an agreement on the follow-on treaty.
  4. inklings

    LSC

    The only case specific DA I can think of is court clogging DA. There was a "kritik" put out by michigan I believe, which was practically LSC is corrupt. You should definitely cut cards saying why corruption has been solved. There are also PIKs of word "asylum" seekers. You should also probably cut answers to those as well.
  5. inklings

    NDT First Rounds

    I think that might be true because they are entered for districts either. Plus, they were ranked top 5 the whole year in coaches poll and practically everyone in that list got a first round bid.
  6. I remember that SDI put out answers a couple of years ago. You might want to look through those and I believe most of the camp backfiles are in another thread.
  7. A world destroyed is by martin j. sherwin with a foreword by Lifton.
  8. There are quite a few books by Lifton. You can read: Destroying the world to save it (1999) A world destroyed (2003) There is also the heg k book by lifton called superpower syndrome. You could also probably read the chaloupka book called knowing nukes. You can also read Kato's article.
  9. You can probably consult NGOs who are poverty related. There is also NGO actor ground.
  10. inklings

    2009 NDT

    Towson CL was 27th. Here is the ndt packet: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/NDT/NDTDocs/TeamsInOrder2009NDT.pdf
  11. Not necessairly. Your internal should be relatively new. As a matter of fact, your link story and internal link should be your starting point for cutting a DA. You need to find cards saying why X is key to passage or stopping of Y. Those cards need to be relatively new as well. Besides, there is a misconception that if your card is a day or so newer, you win the uniquness debate. Your cards have to have some sort of warrants that makes your argument better than theirs. For example, if their evidence is from january and yours is from march - your analysis shouldnt be limited to saying that "our cards are recent, hence we win" - it should say something like "their evidence doesnt assume the passage of stimulus - that is why we win the uniqueness debate."
  12. Exactly. Our defintion of nuclear war omits what happened to Native Americans and the 4th world. The impact to Kato K is predicated on this "nuclear war" against the 4th world.
  13. There is rarely ever a good alternative that would actually solve for the Ks. It is the same idea as having a plan that claims to solve some really big random impact such as global warming. Finding good alternatives is really really hard. Generally, reject aff alternatives are good to have because then you can get out of the perm debate. However, it has its own downsides. If you feel that you can defend why rejecting affirmative would solve capitalism, then you should go with that.
  14. When you say that you "deny what has happened to the Native Americans as a type of 'nuclear war'" - how is that not a link of omission. From what I undestand you are saying that this nuclear testing against fourth world is a type of nuclear war - when we engage in talks over nuclear war, we ignore these nuclear testings.
×
×
  • Create New...