Jump to content

Zero Shift

Member
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Slipping...

About Zero Shift

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/25/1966

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago
  1. a bunch of maine east teams are going, like 4-5 novice teams
  2. My 1NC in that round would consist of a Detalied abuse argument. Somelthing like They dont advocate their plan txt: A. this means there is no NEG ground in this debate, the AFF can just shift what they want to do B. Destroys the limits of the debate, the AFF can literally do any thing, solve for world peace, hunger everything C. This is also fiat abuse, by not mandating a plan text, they can fiat just about anything, this is bad for debate cause it leads to magical AFFS D. Kills education: the AFF decided to do no work this year and run a random case, that has nothing to do with the topic. we havent learned anything about the topic E. Anhilliates fairness, the NEG cant prepare, learn or even get lynx in this debate, the AFF will always win F. Voting Issue, dont let them get away with the abuse coming out of the 1NC, even if they shift to defend the plan text that just proves our abuse claims the 1NC is over G. Potential abuse is also a VI, if we dont set a clear example it encourages shady aff teams to defend only parts of their plan text or shift slightly it in the 2AC. Also make no solvency arguments, their plan text does nothing
  3. World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy by Stephen G. Brooks (Author), William C. Wohlforth (Author) i heard this book is going to be mindblowingly awesome.
  4. DDI also put out an OTEC, Nanotech, and patents AFF
  5. Dartmouth does a awesome thing where they post videos and other stuff on their wiki space. heres the link: http://ddw.wikispaces.com/
  6. I was just wondering who are the lab leaders for DDI this summer, aside from the SS lab What the campus like, how about the dorms
  7. yeah, you could justify new off case, but Ankur is right about getting straight runed in the 1AR Scenario 1NC: poltix, spending, cp, case 2AC: some add-on that ans the CP 2NC: new DA + CP, drops tix, or bad job on tix 1AR: runs five minutes worth of straight turns on the CP/Da, and theory the 2NR is an a strategic disadvantage because, he has to ans theory, which arguably judges think the strat is shady, so at least a minute reading theory blocks. Next he has to extend the Cp/DA read the ov/impact cal. that leaves him 3 minutes to ans 5 minutes worth of impact turns, 2AR: he is at a strategic advantage because all he has to do is go for 5 mins of the impact turns
  8. i agree with MBV, as long as the AFF is winning that the AFF plan solves fully, then the SQ is falling. all the AFF has to prove that yes even though developmental aid has increased our harms are still there. and as long a the AFF wins that the AFF does something different than the SQ, and it solves the harms that are there than that gives the judge a specific reason to vote for the AFF, regardless whether aid has increased in the SQ EX Gag Rule: Population control 1NC: new form of population control in africa now 2AC: Gag rule prevents U.S funding now, post plan U.S can Fund. now extend our U.S funding key cards. And Even if there is pop control now= hsant soved the cases harms, and has not lifted gag rule Their inherency arg is a specfic reason to vote for the Plan, picture this, new form of population control, and the gag rule being lifted gives the AFF double solvency and makes their inherency claims an advantage for the AFF, this is now a try or die. and the 2NC CP is a bad idea, because the AFF is a DA to the CP, assuming they win the plan is good.
  9. Most debates should never come down to a inherency debate. Most good judges will never vote on inherency. If the negative team really thinks they are gonna win on inherency than your first answer should be. 1. Even if aid has increased than our should have been solved, and since AIDS is still there we have to do the plan. 2. Inherency doesn't justify the Status Quo CP, all our harms are systemic, so as long their is disease this is a specific reason not to do the CP. And The 1AC becomes a Disad to your retarded CP 3. T arg- this arg is super retarded, the NEG would have to prove that 60% of the exact plan is being done in the status quo. and you should have a Counter interp.
  10. Woa man, you don't have to insult him for where he lives, like he said everyones circuit is different. God show some manners.I bet your circuit is no better.
  11. You should always chose a case that you know the most about, or the case that seems to be easy for you to get. It's better to know your Aff well rather than having a case everybody else thinks is awesome
  12. The Thing is when it comes down to novice cases you wanna have something strong so at the end of the year they have a good reliable case that they have been working with for the entire year. T--in my opinion any case can become un-topical depending how you write the AFF. Even Core cases I suggest: Gag Rule: to increase $$ to abortion supporting NGOs, written exactly like that so it is T. this is a great case, because it has lots of impacts and ADV. so no two 1AC will be alike I also lie the DDT aff, it is also pretty solid GHS is probably gonna be the core of the topic, and if you are losing on T, than you probably aren't reading blocks, or C/I
  13. You don't seem to be getting the GAG rule answers. the sanctions cards are premised of bush and the GOP base, nothing to do with the DEMS. and your right the Dems would try to veto bush on this but bush actually has GOP support against abortion allowing him to sanction. Second your forgetting the Arg, that American influence for the last 15 yrs has all other actors skeptical to go against our mexico city policy. The S.P debate: your lucky your not in a real round because you would have lost already. look the plan txt calls for the U.S giving funding to abortion clinics not repealling anything. in the 1AC any real affirmative would put in the Defacto cards, which say that in order to internally overturn the Gag Rule policy and finally get out of the minds of the people we have to directly oppose it and show that the Gag rule isnt absolute law. thsi in affect isn't Extra-T because the funding and oppositioon to the Gag Rule gives us our internal links to S.P On the HEG Debate, any smart AFF will turn the S.P heg debate with the symbol cards. these cards say that the U.S opposing the Gag rule, which is both patriarchal and Neo conservatist, is the only way to change attitudes. and i will take you in this Kritikal debate any day. Tix-- true going bush bad is a better choice, but again there is a lot more evidence by neo conservatist, that make the argument that the plan will be a lose for bush. this is a much better arg. and the losers lose cards are amazing. if bush were to pass a policy that he spend years fighting he would look like a complete jack ass and his approval ratings would go into the negatives. their link turned. No amount of Dem support could help him then. And also non unique bushes approval ratings are so low he would have to accomplish world peace before he could get anything passed. Turn anything bush pushes for turns out a dud, immigartion proves. Spending- You Can run Turns too you know.
  14. " gag rule: they'll lose every round to an int'l actor CP, $, tix, trade-offat least with that plan text GHS: in my opinion, no version of this case is topical it increases by like, no more than 250 people, and thats an overestimation Generics: i thought you said something topical. IPR is not topical, at least save something like that for the end of the year when, according to you, they will finally know standards DDT: fair enough, malaria is a fine aff to start them off with although i don't know why water isn't on this list.... better to have an aid conditioning counterplan rather than an exclude X country more potential for net benefits, plus you avoid the "but X country getting aid is good, juuuuudge!" answer you still have the potential to give said country aid with conditioning, sorta like a consult counterplan" Gag Rule: they won't lose on International actor if they read the sanction cards (hard core republicans will sanction our allies if the support abortion) this is a good arg, because no actor currently fully supports abortion. Also the links to Soft power to this case is amazing. the Gag rule is just as demining to our Soft Power as The Kyoto treaty, ICC, and the war combined. $$= all topical cases this year will hit spending, correction all cases will hit spending(at the novice level) Novices are guaranteed to get answers, like non uniques. Tix= this is actually a D.A i would want to face. the Hard right hates abortions so if they run gag rule decreases Poli Capi than i would run link turns to democratic concessions, the democrats are for aid and abortion, and a dems key to agenda card (you know since they are majority in congress they are pretty key) If they run a bush bad link, than you can always straight turn it with pres veto, and hardline GOP blockade. GHS: true their are cards that say that GHS will only have 250 ppl, but really the plan is either a Advocating a exponential increase (their are cards) where although they will start with only 2580 this will incrementally increase with the pres PEPFAR plan. Generics= you might be right on this one that IPR is pretty untopical, but throw in a few judge biases, you shouldn't lose too many round on T, as long as you read the cards that say generics increases aid ten fold, and that Generics are public health assistance. Also no offense but Novices wont get into a full standards and limits debate until later this season, i suggest you judge a round or two. Oh yeah i forgot about water, its a good case. But in my opinion it is somewhat un-topical depending on how they right the plan. the only T version of this plan is giving some kind of AID to a government water program, i.e the water for the poor act. if the aff does infrastructure building than it really isn't aid or PHA, it is fixing or development according to the root definition of infrastructure building. The Conditioning CP, isn't the way to go. first problem is that only a certain country meets the conditions, like 5 or 7 of them. thats a huge problem in terms of case, the case will always have a bigger impact( especially if they read a certain country impact) Also that CP is so easy to turn, i would just give my novices cards that say that conditions are racist, dehumanizing, and colonialist and this should be rejected. and i would also run the cards that say that African countries can never meet the conditions because they are so messed up, and evening try to meet the conditions screws them up more. Exclude X country is a way better option because if they run kritikal cases ( like water, patriarchy or natural right) i can run the exclude Zimbabwe and running the shunning K/DA, which turns their case because giving genocidal leaders control of water or giving aid in general is immoral and encourages them to be more violent.
×
×
  • Create New...