Jump to content

Aphorism

Member
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Slipping...

About Aphorism

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/08/1990
  1. thank you for making generalizing statements that aren't true. Treating the whole 1AC as a text is usually laughed at. Unless you can PIC out of something in the plan text language Ks are a terrible strategy.
  2. its a dumb argument if your link is that they read the deutsch card.
  3. yes, god forbid any type of judgement on the quality of an argument in a debate round - of course it's an affront to the actual author's ideology!
  4. welcome to shitastic debating 101.
  5. I looked through the WF neg on the wiki and only found chinese dollar dumping / prez powers scenarios. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
  6. William Pendley Between Diplomacy and Deterrence p. 35-36 "If this is the case...of independence from Taipei." If anyone could upload this card or find something similar, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
  7. Please stop giving life to the demented myth that this argument is.
  8. a. show pls b. Navy reserves are currently being put on the ground to guard convoys in Iraq. c. The Coast Guard and Navy already cooperate in the status quo. Depending on the advantages of the aff, your counterplan functionally does nothing. d. The Navy is currently downsizing its personnel. The excess that your evidence talks about has already been accounted for. a. you'll never get a warranted card saying that b. the Coast Guard's unique position as an Armed Force that is perceived not as a military force but rather as a member of Homeland Security solves back most of your link offense. I'd like to see this evidence. And even if it exists, I doubt it is recent enough to account for the Navy's downsizing. a. If we win that your lit is outdated that puts you in a doublebind 1. no solvency - the Navy has no personnel to give / Navy good impact turns 2. you lost your lit checks because its outdated and hence unpredictable b. Throughout this entire post I've defended lit/solvency actor checks. Good thing you offered some warrants to the contrary. Another great argument filled with warrants. I guess it's because off aff bias. Oh wait... The test of solvency advocate is reciprocal. The counterplan should have a solvency advocate functionally equivalent in specificity to the aff's plan. If the aff has a major case with a good solvency advocate that threshold rises. If the aff runs a squirrelly case with no solvency advocate, that burden goes down. Be reasonable, I even offered an example of what I consider to be a PIC. Let me do it again: PIC aff: Congress removes DADT neg: Court removes DADT not PIC aff: USFG removes DADT neg: USFG repeals DOMA It's an issue of encompassing the majority of the topical action of the aff. You bit the example again. Australia funds is a non-topical PIC. go ahead and defend that if you want. It's ridiculous how much you have to twist what your evidence says and doesn't say to justify a politics net benefit. I never said this doesn't link. That's the status quo? Explain it more if you want.
  9. Im arguings PICs without a solvency advocate bad. And to a lesser extent, contrived net benefits that aren't an opportunity cost bad.
  10. Apart from misconstruing the intent of my post, you're right. I have no problem with wage inflation being run as a disadvantage. I do have a problem with it being utilized to prop up an abusive counterplan.
  11. You missed the point. It's less a question of solvency than a question of predictability and neg bias. Nobody is questioning whether fiating Navy reserves into the Coast Guard would solve as an increase mechanism, because of course it would, but the issue of whether it is feasible as a real policy certainly is raised. It also opens a pandora's box of issues with competitive equity--the concern that allowing this means that the neg can take any person from any organization, be it government or not, and fiat them into the Coast Guard. Unless you are willing to defend that research burden, the solvency advocate criterion seems reasonable. Conversely if the aff has a squirrelly case, the neg's burden of solvency advocate scales back as well, ensuring a fair division of predictability. Your tolerance of counterplans seems myopic in the sense that the neg can just get away with too much. This seems rather tripe in light of the fact that the counterplan is everything the affirmative does with the exception of a different solvency mechanism. I guess this isn't a PIC if agent CPs arent PICs either. The only legitimate argument that could be inferred is that, as an offset, it tests the affirmative's adherence to the resolution. However, as it does cause an increase within the Coast Guard, the offset refers only to not recruiting new people, not not increasing within the Coast Guard. Of course politics links deal with increasing personnel within the Coast Guard. However, you've functionally conceded that no author will advocate that offsetting from Navy reserves would cost less political capital. You, as you admittedly pointed out, are left with analytics to piece the two together. Again, the issue of competitive equity is raised. Apart from training, there is no unique reason as to why Navy reserves are in the unique position to be of benefit to the Coast Guard. Reading politics with this "counterplan" takes a mile-wide leap of faith and just encourages the neg trying to pop the aff with a random, generic strategy that has no merit in a policy paradigm, something you submit to when offering a counterplan. As to the issue of wage inflation, the bar of a solvency advocate should once again be applied. Although the argument might be true in certain contexts, I don't believe that a generic piece of evidence that nowhere mentions the Navy, the Coast Guard, or the Navy and Coast Guard should be enough for you to consider this a legitimate net benefit.
  12. This type of counterplan proves why solvency advocate is a good standard to have for PICs. And btw, the CP links as much to politics; I doubt you can win a clear link that delineates between transferring from the Navy and just getting new recruits.
×
×
  • Create New...