Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Requiem last won the day on June 1 2007

Requiem had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Requiem

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/07/1990
  1. But abuse claims aren't only made on T flows. You see them on theory, frameworks, and other procedurals. They may make sense on topicality (although why should the negative be guaranteed links to Spending DAs or Development Ks) but the logic falls apart even more when it's theory. For example, a common argument on Consult CPs is that they're abusive because the aff cannot run external offense without linking to themselves and are therefore forced to turn the NBs. Boo hoo? Isn't that the strategic value of a CP and extraneous to its theoretical legitimacy?
  2. In nearly every topicality debate, the negative makes some claim of abuse. The affirmative doesn't link to X, Y, and Z, and that's abusive. Or so they say. But why does this justify a negative ballot? It seems to me that the negative is pleading for the judge to punish the affirmative for good strategy. If you can get out a a disadvantage or counterplan by the wording of your plan, why shouldn't you? Maybe I'm just missing the boat on abuse claims or haven't seen them articulated correctly, but whenever I hear them I can't help but think "So what?" What are people's thoughts on the value of abuse claims?
  3. Did not find 1, 4, 7, or 16-25 yet. Enjoy reading this... fascinating material. Rittmann, Bruce E (2006) Microbial ecology to manage processes in environmental biotechnology Trends in biotechnology. Vol 24. No 6. p. 261-6 (2006 Jun) http://www.mediafire.com/?8jr0tizm01x Rittmann, Bruce E ; Hausner, Martina ; Löffler, Frank ; Love, Nancy G ; Muyzer, Gerard ; Okabe, Satoshi ; Oerther, Daniel B ; Peccia, Jordan ; Raskin, Lutgarde ; Wagner, Michael (2006) A vista for microbial ecology and environmental biotechnology Environmental science & technology. Vol 40. No 4. p. 1096-103 (2006 Feb 15) http://www.mediafire.com/?bmsmjey5i3z Rittmann, Bruce E ; Stilwell, Douglas ; Garside, Jason C ; Amy, Gary L ; Spangenberg, Carl ; Kalinsky, Arseny ; Akiyoshi, Eric (2002) Treatment of a colored groundwater by ozone-biofiltration: pilot studies and modeling interpretation Water research. Vol 36. No 13. p. 3387-97 (2002 Jul) http://www.mediafire.com/?55bsvjhyefm Moon H., I. S. Chang and B. H. Kim (2006) Continuous electricity production from wastewater using mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Bioresource Tech. 97, 621-627. http://www.mediafire.com/?5k2badccczm Kim B. H., H. S. Park, H. J. Kim, G. T. Kim, I. S. Chang, J. Lee and N. T. Phung (2004). Enrichment of microbial community generating electricity using a fuel cell type electrochemical cell. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 63, 672-681 http://www.mediafire.com/?fm59n91ivqi Aelterman, P., Rabaey, K., Pham, T.H., Boon, N. and Verstraete, W. (2006) Continuous electricity generation at high voltages and currents using stacked microbial fuel cells. Environmental Science & Technology. 40:3388-3394 (SCI: 4.054). http://www.mediafire.com/?fs3ym0tm5i0 Aelterman, P., Rabaey, K., Clauwaert, P. and Verstraete, W. (2006) Microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology. 54:9-15 http://www.mediafire.com/?0ma1bixrl7d Kim, J.R., S.H. Jung, B.E. Logan, and J. Regan. 2007. Electricity generation and microbial community analysis of ethanol powered microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technol. 98(13): 2568-2577. http://www.mediafire.com/?3xdzm03x2b1 Rezaei, F., T.L. Richard, R. Brennan, and B.E. Logan. 2007. Substrate-enhanced microbial fuel cells for improved remote power generation from sediment-based systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(11):4053-4058. http://www.mediafire.com/?8j9jd1c4ymd Ditzig, J., H. Liu and B.E. Logan. 2007. Production of hydrogen from domestic wastewater using a bioelectrochemically assisted microbial reactor (BEAMR). Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy. 32(13), 2296-2304. http://www.mediafire.com/?aukbh32byzl Cheng, S., B.A. Dempsey, and Bruce E. Logan. 2007. Electricity generation from synthetic acid-mine drainage (AMD) water using fuel cell technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(23):8149-8153. http://www.mediafire.com/?au4dsoktydz
  4. Here's the article: http://www.mediafire.com/?40ezuj1epct
  5. And this is why your position doesn't make any sense, Ankur. The affirmative never has to defend against "every policy in the history of man." The perm solves back all unpredictability. When people claim counterplans are competitive via net benefits, the net benefits are either (1) disadvantages to the affirmative plan, or (2) advantages of the counterplan. If the NBs are disads to the plan, the aff should have been prepared to debate them anyway. If the NBs are advantages to a mutually-exclusive part of the counterplan, the affirmative cannot perm. This is also predictable under your own interpretation, since this would be an opportunity cost to the plan. If the NBs are advantages to a non-mutually-exclusive part of the counterplan, the perm, which does the plan and non-competitive parts of the CP, solves the advantage as well. Take your own example. You tried to come up with an absolutely ridiculous counterplan, and yet in the end, it comes down to the plan vs. disad. The disad does link, the affirmative should be prepared, and their research burden *gasp* isn't insurmountable. Even in your opportunity cost paradigm, doing the counterplan alone is a foregone opportunity once the plan is passed. Let the debaters decide if a non-mutually exclusive policy can be a counterplan or must be an advocacy, but there isn't a reason agent counterplans don't fit into your interpretation of debate. You just don't want to accept it.
  6. QFA. In fact, the very plan text that prompted me to start that thread was the one in the first post here.
  7. Why do we have to use the economics definition of "opportunity cost" when we're dealing with counterplans here? In a way, that counterplan is partially mutually exclusive: you cannot just withdraw from Iraq if you also give PHA to SSA. If you look at it like that, there is a small (very small) opportunity cost. But all you'd have to do is perm that crap counterplan and it would just take it back to case vs. the "bad" accusations. The Iraq debate would become irrelevant. The perm still proves that the counterplan is noncompetitive, regardless of your definition of opportunity cost, since the mandates of the CP don't even have to be discussed after the 1NC - after the perm all focus is still on PHA.
  8. It's already on the Introduction to Debate page.
  9. They're there, but I wish they weren't. I didn't even know you could add black boxes?
  10. I think he's trying to say that if you win deontology (that the impact of the linear DA is immoral) than it becomes a reason to reject the plan regardless of the magnitude of the affirmative's advantages. That's just counterplanning for uniqueness, which can work. I'm not too keen on that theory, but those types of counterplans always seem noncompetitive to me. Using Ankur's genocide example, if you can come up with a way to stop all genocide that isn't exclusive with the plan, it's just plan plus. Perm. If your solution to genocide is exclusive with the aff, they can't perm, but you'd still have to win that eliminating all genocide is more beneficial than gaining the aff's advantages. In other words, you'd still have to win the impact calc.
  11. That's what I was thinking - it's just a DA. Getting an abuse story about a linear disadvantage would be very difficult...
  12. Actually it would be helpful if you did say more. I disagree. People fiat normal means nearly every debate. Consultation, at least with the involved or interested states, is certainly normal means. The existence of the state department proves (like Dan said), and I doubt we'd just drop aid out of airplanes onto Sudan because we don't want to discuss the fact with their government. At the point when consulting is normal means, and nothing abusive is done with this plan plank, how is it an abuse of fiat? --- The main question I still have though is whether it is worth the effort? It certainly seems as though theory objections could be overcome as long as no advantages are claimed off of it (which would be a weak advantage anyway). But strategically, is eliminating some consult counterplans worth the risk of a theory timesuck? And, as I asked above, would specifying the "relevant" countries be wise (e.g. "In consultation with Burundi, the USfg should send PHA to Burundi")? P.S. To the anonymous neg-repper: if you don't like my arguments, contest them. Don't hide in the shadows.
  13. Do you see that as a binding consultation or just an informative one?
  • Create New...