Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Slipping...

About ozzy123

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/02/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Biography
    joined debate my sophmore year and now im finally starting to win some debates
  • Location
  • Interests
    debate, counterstrike, frizlax
  • Occupation
  1. So basically: 1AC 1NC - DA with econ colapse - 1) link your plan increases amount of people 2) people use more money, resources, etc 3) economy spins out of control 2AC - Impact turn - econ colapse good, peak oil leads to more envirnmental mindset and renewable reasources, get out deep eco files.
  2. oh, i get it, i thought that in one line he said "Public Health" shouldn't be defined as one term and then in the next post he said it should.
  3. so far this is what i have gotten (mostly from synergy's awsome website) Malthus is wrong - basic economical concepts are overlooked, etc, BUT, if his arguments were infused with acreage, global warming, and peak oil arguments, it could be useful
  4. what happens when you define "public" in the 1NC and then they bring up a counter definition of "PHA" in their 2AC and claim that if they are topical under "PHA" then they are topical under "public?" And, cant it be argued that if one can claim the aff to be not topical under each word it is overlimiting because now you have to meet every word, whereas, if you group them together, 1) its doesnt overlimit, 2) the neg still gets pleanty of ground for defining "PHA", and 3) words mean different things when put into context, so you get a better debate.
  5. is anyone else going to UTNIF from around here?(i am the person from homer's post)
  6. toad? when i hear that i think of warts.
  7. did you buy a controller for a system you dont have?
  8. can malthus be used as a kritique?
  9. shows you how much i know lol could you explain this more please?
  10. no, i think that would under limit. Your best bet would be to use the card tomak posted on the first page. It defines 3 topical ways. this way there is no grey area and you can easily win brightline on a competing interps debate. BTW: framers intent is a bad standard cause nobody knows what the framers were thinking unless you were a framer. they dont specify what they intend because that would completly destroy topicalliy debates.
  11. I would like to know more about this guy and how it relates to debate. I serched for a while, but i couldnt get a good understanding.
  12. Another one is "Onto an overview: Judge, you should look to the affirmative for the win because, frankly, the only bad thing that comes out of voting affirmative is more Peace Corps members helping natives build their huts."
  13. my favorite line was an answer to our "Senior Corps" doesnt exist T we meet - president bush said "senior Corps" in one of his speeches, therefore it must exist! (the basis of the argument is that there is no program called senior corps, it is actually a clump of sever programs that do different things relating to seniors. They were grouped together and called Senior Corps, but the fact remains that no such organization exists, its just a bunch of smaller organization. The standards are based of the problem that if there is no such thing a senior corps, there is no literature that specifically addresses it, because at best they can talk about the programs that were grouped together.)
  • Create New...