Jump to content

Noob

Member
  • Content Count

    622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Noob last won the day on May 9 2008

Noob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

226 Excellent

About Noob

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/19/1989

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    BobSagot9

Profile Information

  • Location
    California
  1. Herbert Marcuse this might help: http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/3/onacronyms.php
  2. its a generic defense of the permutation to do the plan and alternative. the double bind is as such: either 1) the alternative is so good it solves all the links occurring in the status quo everyday. this means that it is also good enough to solve the tiny link to the plan if you were to do both the plan and alternative (perm) or 2) the alternative cannot overcome the link to the plan. this is bad for the negative for obvious reasons hope that helped
  3. Critical CAFO's was also read by Berkeley BJ. And, a critical dairy aff was read by Gonzaga BC
  4. Education -- two internals: 1) people are less inclined to go through all the extra steps to access virtual debates partitioned in different mediafire links. i know i'd rather not. 2) mediafire links go dead if no one clicks them for a period of time. a lot of the value in these debates is that they are good teaching tools for debaters of all skill levels. that value is lost everytime another link dies you may be laughing at the impact but if i win the above, the impact becomes much more real than the average high school T debate. its a voter because once a few people lose on this argument in virtual debate rounds, a precedent will be set and people will likely stop doing it.
  5. 1NC: reject the plan as an instance of capitalist ideology 2AC: perm: do the plan and reject all other instances of capitalism (intrinsic) 2NC: counterperm: reject all other instances and the plan by doing this, the negative is able to capture the offense gained by the affirmatives intrinsic perm and argue that the counterperm is still comparatively better because it goes a step farther and rejects the plan as well also, there should be threads on this. try a search
  6. You probably missed it because I never said that or attempted to say that.
  7. Just because its hard for the aff to answer doesn't mean its unfair or not educational. If the negative justifies why they don't know the world exactly after the alternative (as is very possible with many criticisms) then its okay. If they don't do so, you have a lot of leeway on winning alt bad arguments. I don't see much room for theory unless it is obviously a theoretical issue where the alt is written in a blatantly vague way and the team keeps shifting.
  8. I think this is a bad argument. If the negative wins that the uncertainty of the world of the alternative is a good thing, then they deserve to win.
  9. No one is saying dead people have no rights, and no one is saying that we can take their organs because they can't speak. The logic can't be applied to living infants that have first amendment rights. This has nothing to do with how much dead people can stop us. I don't understand your second sentence. Opt outs could exist which would allow those with particular religious concerns to circumvent the law. It's safe to say that a majority of people do not become organ donors simply because they are uneducated on its potential importance and/or are lazy. A mandatory policy with the ability to opt out solves that. What are you basing this claim on? The United Network for Organ Sharing reported a new person being added to the waiting list every 14 minutes in the United States. Thousands of people die waiting on those lists which is intrinsically tragic in addition to all the money that goes into keep these people in hospitals for the time until their death. Also, I'd like to know what those barriers are to solvency. How is not reasonable to assume a mandatory organ donation policy would help alleviate the problems with organ shortage. I already answered this above. First, malpractice lawsuit potential would most likely prevent this. The fact that doctors usually don't have a big personal incentive to make that risk means they probably won't. In addition, protocol would mean that even if a doctor intentionally made a patient die for his/her organs, the organs couldn't be used however the doctor wants. They would go to those patients waiting for that organ. As someone else pointed out, it also means that we should theoretically never be organ donors. Most importantly, with a mandatory policy, we'd have so many more organs that we presumably wouldn't have a shortage forcing doctors to treat living people wrongly. How is the former not directly related to the latter. Thousands dying is an important observation when deciding whether the government has that right. ADD ON: Organ shortage fuels an illicit trade of organs which causes desperate people to sell organs for money, and in some cases murder for organs. Mandatory donation solves.
  10. As funny as that is, I was speaking to that line. I think its saying that those victories are what brought Clinton to the peak of his power (hence, winner's win). "Sadly, he couldn't hold," indicates that external factors, unrelated to his winner's win thesis, brought him down.
×
×
  • Create New...