Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About NasirGross

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/19/1989
  1. First off, maybe you haven't adequately researched the Counterplan, but plenty of literature exists that would certainly qualify as being considered a "solvency advocate". Second, even if none existed, your interpretation is the one definitely more deserving of being named myopic. Are you seriously saying that we should always resort to the (often unwarranted) opinions of others in everything we advocate... Talk about destroying education. On the issue of predictability, it shouldn't be too unpredictable for an aff to defend their specific solvency mechanism (especially when it relates back to the very purpose of the resolution in the first place). And your argument works against you. The aff should be able to use their solvency advocate to do this and leverage the case against the CP. And if your right, then winning against the CP without an advocate should be quite easy. But the fact is, if the neg can sufficiently convince the judge that such a policy action would solve (something you've already conceded) than there's absolutely no reason to reject the argument. So basically, my point is, is that if such an advocate is so crucial to taking the CP's position, then the neg will most likely lose. But if the right evidence and arguments are made to give the judge reason to believe that the CP has a high probability of solving the case without linking to the net benefits, then they should win. What do you think goes on in the real world? People make these exact judgments and attempt to advance their proposals. Eliminating this kind of analytical/critical thinking in debate would ruin a large reason of why debate is so valuable. I won't even get into the wage inflation argument. On the issue of politics, the negative shouldn't have to provide the aff their links. But once again, the evidence is good in explaining how increased funding proposals for more recruits is what the DA links too, not taking reserves (which the evidence says are already trained and ready to take the job) and simply transferring them over. Also, look to the link Scotty provided on how the AF increase is what links to the DA. Offset =/= increase. If you concede theirs no unique reason as to why Navy reserves are better, why wouldn't the judge still vote negative due to the net benefits.
  2. If you can prove solvency without an advocate it shouldn't matter. And I don't think this even qualifies as a PIC.. And actually, the tix evidence is very good in talking about how new coast guard legislation for more funding/personnel is perceived politically. Transferring personnel which aren't used anyway and who are already trained won't be perceived in the same way. It only takes simple analytics to make that point, but it doesn't matter anyway because they're numerous other netbenefits to not implementing direct increase in recruitment (such as wage inflation mentioned).
  3. lol.. Logan indeed, but not for that reason. Btw.. I heard your going to Berkeley. (are you debating there?)
  4. Good post Hoon Ko. Apologies if I sounded rude, but my only objective in this thread was to say that JonW's thinking that "only Bellarmine will succeed" is faulty and ignorant, even if it is only a joke. Again, I am in no way saying Bellarmine teams are bad. I've debated them a couple of times, including DW in double octos at state. It was an extremely slow round (genocide prevention), we went for T+CP, ended up losing, but it was a good round. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, that there are many rising California teams and IMO Zach should do well next year once exposed to the circuit. St. Francis, CPS, Jesuit, etc all deserve mention as well..
  5. awesomeness doesn't mean anything again, good for them.. Here we go with the awesomeness again.. And care to give us examples of teams that showed up as seniors and magically broke at the TOC with great success on the national circuit? Please don't compare state to the TOC/NC.. Good, you agree.. 1) There won't always be lay judges.. 2) Let me enlighten you: 2007 Berk Prelim Results for BCP DV 2-1 GS 2-1 RS 2-1 SW 2-1 XX 1-2 not bad.. but none of those are 3-0 3) Also, not one team finished with better than a 4-4 or 5-3 4) Whats the point of being good with lay judges but losing with others (not to say they are not good) Whatever you say.. Im sure they are.. No, the "internets" conveyed your irony well. But last time I checked, you're the only one ignorant enough to say "OMG my team is best". Keep in mind, I'm in no way saying Bellarmine teams are bad, just saying that their are definately other rising teams, and teams rising higher.
  6. Because obviously, every BCP team has been "tyte" and "dominating the circuit" (thanks Akash) forever.. There's no reason to believe that they'll do that much better next year.
  7. How incredibly wrong you are... Among such teams, consider Edison LR on the rise.
  8. I'm looking for impacts to constitutionality. Things like "Judge must uphold constitution," "violation --> tyranny, extinction," etc.. PM me or email NimaHarandi@gmail.com Also, when using the search feature I came across threads talking about Constitutionalism K and Anti-Constitutionalism K from an old topic. If someone has any of these, I would appreciate a quick explanation of what they are. Thanks.
  9. Edison has run Fire Corps, Peace Corps, Coast Guard, Linguists, Draft, End Strength and Americorps service learning. I doubt that helps much
  10. already talked to you..
  11. would the God mind disclosing Logan affs?
  • Create New...