Jump to content

debatetitan

Member
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by debatetitan

  1. What would the advantages be? and could u really cut a aff on this? seriously this would be hard to access good advantages and ontop of that how much lit is there on this? i wouldnt think to much. So when the teram runs a politics disad against u that impacts nuke war what do u say? "Cancer of the lungs outweighs nuke war"
  2. I read that u get a "packet of evidence at registration"....my guess that "packet" probably means apaper evidence and from what i read when u are done with camp u get the evidence cd..... I hope that helped...thats just how i interpreted what i read...so it could be wrong.
  3. 1. I read articles that said that we have not spent the money because the rule and that simply repealing wouldhave us use that funding that we have not used do to the gag rule. 2. Name some ways to turn the entire case. 3. That is true, but they can be argued topical. 4. w/e. topicality is such a huge issue and is evaluated differently almost everytime, good teams can make it seem true. for example many have won the interp this year that In=throughout T they argued it good....but would it make sense that i said "SEVVDOG went throughout the room"? No it doesnt. Just becuase they are untrue doesnt mean its not winnable and make the aff "untopical" in the judges vote in the round. 5. same answer i said about 4. There are so many ways to argue T and so many interps and that it will be diff everytime. It doesnt need to be true. If u can argue it even if ur wrong u can get out of the problem. 6. they apply but can they have the USFG repeal the Gag Rule to SSA? NO. Actor CP's wpuldnt really work if its like a country actor. The USFG would have to repeal it. So how could china do this? or Japan? Or the EU? or NATO? or the UN? they cant repeal. They could have the US repeall though and they provide the funding...but alll in the same. IT IS ARGUABLE AND EITHER WAY U DONT HAVE TO ARGUE THE TRUE SIDE TO WIN. 7. Yea i dont wanna get into the line by line either for the simple fact that this could go on forever and neither of our minds will change.
  4. 1. the funding isnt being provided at all, so repealing would actually provide funding to the places that dont recieve currently. So the US would provide that funding becuase now it can. 2. then do #1 3. Thats easy to debate and is winnable.
  5. But this would make an increase by repealing the Gag rule. U wouldnt necessarily have to put more funding for this case cuz the repeal auto would. I amalso thinking of K's and Cp's that wont work on this case. In your opinion it is untopical. Why are camps cutting a untopical aff then? And it is topical under the resolution becuase it is increasing the PHA to SSA. And like i said, people can always give an interpretation to make any aff untopical. Iit proves my point that u said about "patriarchy good" thing. U said they could just run that when attacking the case in ur other post. But i refuted and said that there is heg bad and people still run heg and win it. Why not patriarchy? here are some ways with the funding... 1. None-repealing alone would increase us funding because its blocked now by the gag rule. 2. Provide money to the PHA programs that were blocked from funding by the GAg rule and repeal 3. Divert funding from a bad source that is wasted and repeal
  6. At the same time every other case will have these same problems. And this one seems to have less than others overall. Every other case can be proved un-topical by a good neg team and good T blocks. And almost all advantages are turnable usually. Have u heard of a case thats advantages people just leave alone cuz they think its unbeatable? or w/e it is there is always ways to take down a aff's advantages, there are no solid ones. For example u said what about the patriarchy good args. Last year people ran cases like UAV's with thier only advantage as Heg...But isnt there a hell of alot that says Heg bad? Also u could do diff things with the Gag rule plan funding wise that would change how it opperates making it harder to access against actor cp's that wont really work. The clean water case and Gag rule are my fav's out of all the ones i have seen and looked at.
  7. O, i didnt know that cultural genocide and Dehum are considered critical. In that case, there are those and more.
  8. I cant remember...i have seen some about the right to water..and aso there are others that i have read....but i dont think that tjere are that many...but there are some...it depends on what u consider critical.
  9. I definitly agree that it is extremely counterplanable (this is my made up word) by other actors. And that it will be very accessable to DA's and some K's. But with good bocks and answers i think this wont be much of a problem for a water aff. But i do think that it is one of the biggest issues confronting SSA public health. There is alot of lit about how AIDS and water are interlinked, same with poverty and alot of other problems you have listed as more important that water being clean would solve. Suc as wars and stuff that you mentioned. There is alot of stuff about how the next generation of wars will be fought over water.
  10. I read that an Camp in Kentucky is cutting a patent reform aff, so this maybe what u are talking about...
  11. And water got my vote to because that and the fact that it can grab such huge advantages, critical ones, and alot of ghreat policy ones that have huge impacts. And it is pretty much undeniably topical.
  12. Spelling was never one of my best subjects. Sory about all that. I forgot alot and spelled things wrong...it shows i did it quick...
  13. What do you think is the most solid Aff for the SSA topic? Sory, i forgot to put Family Planning under the poll....i guess that is what the other will be then besides the critical aff's like Becoming african and that other stuff. And i forgot the TOP aff to...so i guess that wiollbe under other aswell. Other=critical aff's, TOP, Family Planning, crazy affs that no one will run after they make it and lose all thier rounds on, anmd i forgot about the health care training ones and infrastructure, and the ones Tomak said, and food aid. sry i forgot soo much.
  14. I think it is possible to get a strait up heg adv. I have one for my case. There will prob be many ways that people can spin it to get their heg adv.s For example, in the water aff thread they talk about how water is the internal link to all US heg. That is one of the cards posted. so the adv would go like this for astrait up heg adv.. 1. heg low now-some reason 2. plan provides clean water through solvency mech 3. acess to water is ky to US heg 4. heg impact
  15. debatetitan

    Sudan aff help

    You could provide PHA to the refugees there..... U could do something about the govornment there...but thats not exactly PHA...... Military intervention...
  16. A solvency mechanism is how the aff solves the case. So for a malaria case solvency mechanisms would be Bed Nets or Medication. And I guess it would be how they are distributed too. for a water aff it could be one of all the different types of purifiers. for an Aids case it could be Education the people, Drugs, ect.... different ways to solve basically. And it would be under the solvency in the aff case.
  17. yea, thats true, those were just bad examples though...my bad.
  18. Its when a teams Plan Text is gramatically wrong that makes it not work right. For example a team i hit once spelled Dont Ask Dont Tell like "Dont Ask Dont Tel" with only one "l" as u can see. U should argue this doesnt exist and that only the one with 2 "l"'s exists and that they pass to repeal a non-existant plan so the neg gets no ground.... If non-key words are spelled wrong then its not really a big deal like "substantualy" spelled wrong isnt a big deal but if "sub-Saharan Africa" is spelled wrong they are sending aid to a non existant place so they dont solve. Do u see the difference? another example The United States Federal Goverment should increase the number of people in the Learn and Serve program. If "number" is spelled wrong there is no problem but if u mispell the USFG or "learn and serve" then u have a problem..... a really good way to tell if it is a problem that makes it trully flawed is if u take out the word that is mispelled wrong does thier plan still work? if yes then no big deal, but if u take out the word and thier plan text doesnt do anything then u can kill them in the round. they dont solve now or whatever the problem is.
  19. This may be a stupid question but are their "bad" debaters that go to this camp? The people who never broke and basicaly lose almost everyround... or do the really good debaters go? the ones that have broken before and usually do good?
  20. But my point is that teams should still argue it if the aff has it and atleast shortly argue for like 15 secs that they are within it....otherwise like we did, we abused the neg like crazy and killed them on framework..and they have to say more than "we are within the framework" they should explain why otherwise they will be screwed..my point is just dont drop it completely...thats what i meant.
  21. Honestly, i wouldnt advise that u try to just "debate within the other teams framework." When teams did that we would kill them on it and somehow argue that they weent within it andd they would lose! so it is not neccessary 4 every round but even if u are within it, debate thier framework.
  22. They better not judge us on how we dress! I am so sick of wearing a siut to every tournament!! we are the only ones that dress up mostly at the tournaments! its agrivating.......we wear suits and they wear a t-shirt and jeans!
  23. O, nevermind......i only had to run framework on the neg 4 times....so i dont have as much experience on that side...jusrt alot on the aff.
  24. i only underlined the the first thing 4 u......i was to lazy to read the rest..... http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/lieberthal20050301.htm Preventing a War Over Taiwan Foreign Affairs, March 1, 2005 Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Summary Although neither China nor Taiwan wants war, both pursue policies that raise the risk of bloodshed: the first by issuing vague warnings, the second by testing their limits. To stabilize the situation, the Bush administration should help broker a temporary agreement under which Taipei would put off independence and Beijing would stop threatening to attack. Strait Talk One of the greatest dangers to international security today is the possibility of a military confrontation between China and Taiwan that leads to a war between China and the United States. Such a war would be not only tragic but also unnecessary, since it would result from a failure of imagination and diplomacy—fought because a place that has long declared itself independent was attacked for doing so again. Neither Beijing nor Taipei wants a war, but both sides have adopted policies that run an unacceptably high risk of bloodshed over the next several years. The Bush administration should therefore take steps now to reduce the prospect of conflict across the Taiwan Strait. Understanding what those steps should be, however, requires getting past the rhetorical constructs that have dominated discussion to date. China says that it wants stability across the Taiwan Strait, that it can postpone final resolution of the cross-strait issue for a long time, that it is developing its regional military capabilities solely to deter Taiwanese independence, and that it will use force if necessary to prevent or reverse a declaration of independence. But these positions have not served China's interests well, because it has failed to make clear exactly what "declaring independence" involves. By not doing so, Beijing has risked miscalculation by a Taiwanese leadership that does not want to provoke a military response but continues to push the envelope just short of one. The fact that for more than a decade Taiwan's leaders have declared Taiwan to be "an independent, sovereign country" without dramatic consequences adds to the confusion. Beijing's stance now runs the risk that Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian will consider China's threats a bluff. (Chen's pro-independence predecessor Lee Teng-hui, for example, has said that Beijing is nothing more than a "paper tiger.") Ironically, Beijing's position also enhances the stature and leverage of the pro-independence elements in Taiwan. Since China says war and peace will be determined by what these individuals say and do, they attract enormous domestic and international attention. China may be able to continue on its current course, expanding trade and investment ties with Taiwan while insisting that the island's leaders accept the "one-China principle" as a precondition for any political talks and threatening the use of force in response to a declaration of independence. But if it does, it will be tying both its credibility and the chances of a confrontation to forces beyond its control. Triangulation Over the past two decades, Taiwan has moved from dictatorship to democracy. It has achieved this transition with remarkably little political disruption, a fact that is rightfully a source of pride for the island's people and leaders. But Taiwan's democracy is still very young, and it is experiencing growing pains. Political parties remain weak and faction-ridden, the notion of cross-party compromise to produce legislation is not well established, and leaders have been moving toward the use of referendums as a way to get around obstreperous opposition in the legislature. Cross-strait relations, meanwhile, have become deeply intertwined in intensive partisan maneuvering for ...
×
×
  • Create New...