Jump to content

inklings

Member
  • Content Count

    564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by inklings

  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.
  15. I have seen better econ terminal impact cards. If you are to even google it - you will get alot of good articles.
  16. There really isnt any difference between politics and "regular DAs". You still have to win uniquness, link, internal link and an impact to win the round. The reason why people usually characterize it in its own category is becuase 1. it can be categorized 2. uniquness debate is much heavier when it comes to politics - generally on "regular DAs" uniquness question isnt a big problem
  17. I think it depends on why you want to run a CP. Generally its for two purposes. 1. competitive policy 2. sucessfully make outweigh arguments. You want to read a CP with some case defense so when you go for DA in the 2nr, you can make arguments like, we solve 100% of the case plus the net benefit i.e. DA. If you dont have case defense and have a competitive policy that solves for those harms then its an easy 2ar becuase all the 2ar has to say is that you are conceding case and we outweigh. That said, I think XO and consult CPs are a great choice because more than likely you will solve for all of harms of 1ac. There are very few debates who will actually be articulate good reasons why congress is uniquely better. I think against court cases, getting in congress debate is much more fun and better.
  18. http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/Index.aspx In the results section, you can run all sorts of analyses. As for ranking by schools, I am not sure that there is one particular variable they use for that. But you can try navigating the website and see if you find that.
  19. I agree with everything darthbanaaspajamas. I personally have never run 1 off. But I have seen people do it very succefully. I am one of those people who would run 55 cards against you if you are a 1off team. It gets hard if you are slower than the other team and I have noticed that usually people who are 1 off arent amazingly fast but there are exceptions. You should become more efficient and find places to put more offense on. One simple place would be to kritik fiat because you will most likely see people reading framework. It would be hard for 1ar to get to answering fiat bad cards if you have good substantive arguments there. You can also kritik speed. I think you have to be efficient. You need to understand their cards more than them, which is also true if you read the same 1 off for a long time. You need to group arguments and read "preemptive" sort of evidence in 1nc. You need to have small 1 card offense type arguments. Meaning, if they win everything else, but there are cards are not specific to that one particular argument, you can go for that. For example, if you read a science bad link card on cap k, and their arguments are why cap is good, then you can independently go for science bad argument.
  20. I dont think that you need to have blocks to every single 2ac arguments that are made to your K. I would recommend sitting with your coaches and really flush down which arguments really answer your K. A lot of the time people will read some generic cards which wont answer your K. I have seen alot of successful team with 1 off K who take the whole 2n to outline the story of the K with all impact and turn arguments. For example, cal berekly does this. Usually in case of 1 off, there will be tons of perms. I think it would be beneficial if you let the 1nr take the perm and any other theory debate including framework and you just focus on core of your thesis.
  21. inklings

    Heg Card

    you can also look into kagan card Bradley A. Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006, The National Interest, November/December, p. LexisTHROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States CONTINUES Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need.
  22. Is their argument that uniquness overwhelms the link? or that cap and trade passage drains PC?
×
×
  • Create New...