Jump to content

wcdd7

Member
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About wcdd7

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/28/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Chris Dawkins
  • School
    The Game!
  1. You guys are kinda missing the boat on my greater point. How does this case even begin to solve? I would love to hear a straight up 1NC that is just case turns, and that should be fairly easy to cut. I think that you can undercut their solvency with enough defense to win this round. On the shale point though, I think Dutch Disease serves as a stronger turn to case than it does as a turn to the DA. Atlas is right when he says we're too well diversified. That DA would be strong because heavily subsidized investment in Venezuela (which as my thought-experiment points out above, it would have to be ridiculously subsidized) would lower the price-point per produced barrel. Shale oil is expensive to produce in both economic and human capital terms, but we do it because the price per bbl is so high right now. Heavily subsidized production in offshore Venezuela would have a much lower price per bbl, and therefore would be a desireable alternative to shale production causing thousands of people to lose their jobs and the economy to teeter. I think an argument like that combined with an "oil companies won't do it" gives you defense on the solvency plus offense on the "well, even if they do do it" side. Not to mention that there's plenty of evidence out there that turns case and their advantages.
  2. This thread makes me sad that people don't cut new and innovative arguments. Politics, security, and cap will always be around because certain coaches are lazy or enjoy spreading a single message. We should be training you and you should be training yourselves to find a new and different message that you can use to turn an old argument. Reading the same thing every year doesn't create strong debate skills; it just entrenches a single way of thinking.
  3. Guys, I'm really interested in how this case even gets around the fact that Venezuela "essentially" doesn't allow American companies to drill.They nationalized it in 2007 and the majors took off. They're not going back either. My viewpoint from working for an independent that does some international is that no one else is interested either because of the infrastructure and the massive potential in Africa, Asia, and even the Gulf right now, not to mention the US shale plays. If you guys wanted to hurt any oil case, I'm sure it would be fairly easy to cut a US Shale DA. Foreign investment, especially governmental investment, hurts US shale plays which in turn hurts employment and the economy. Beyond that, Ankur is dead on on almost all of his points. Edit: When I say essentially: What that is saying is essentially this: You, as a supermajor, invest 5 billion dollars into Venezuela in order to drill 10 wells, establish production facilities, pipelines, and general infrastructure. Over 10 years, you produce 50 billion dollars worth of oil from that field. PDVSA up to this point has not paid anything because they are being carried. However, you pay 60% of that to PDVSA as their partner. You're left with 20 billion. You pay 33% of that to the government as a royalty. You're left with 13.3334 billion. You pay 50% of that in taxes (to be fair, I'm not sure if this is just Venezuela taxes or US taxes as well. We're not including those in our little thought experiment here). You're left with 6.6667 billion. Over ten years, you've successfully grossed 1.67 billion dollars. You could have left it in the bank and had a better time value of money. This little thought experiment doesn't include dry holes or accidents. It doesn't include overrruns of costs. It assumes $105 per bbl. It assumes that the US economy stays stable for 10 years. It assumes a whole hell of a lot. And it nets almost nothing. Another argument you might want to make is "Domestic Companies will say No." There's plenty of evidence out there right now that says no company in their right mind is going to go subject themselves to that, and I'm sure that those cases aren't advocating that the USFG go do the drilling themselves.
  4. wcdd7

    NDT results

    Emory IW is what I've heard.
  5. I am. Districts is in about a month, so prep for that is getting pretty crazy. Stothers got second at Georgia in JV, and is headed to Kentucky this weekend or next, not quite sure.
  6. I was going to answer you, but then I realized, I don't care. I think your resolution is going to be a good one that is quite easy to explain. Have fun at Cabot or wherever you're going.
  7. I thought that I might try to talk to you like you speak to everyone else (ie the AR debate group). It is rather insulting. Treat others like you would like to be treated. Just an object lesson. On the other argument. Yea, it is a single T argument. It's also going to be the only true distinction on this topic for what is and isn't topical. (Unless you want to go the substantial route) This is an extraordinarily broad topic, and I would trade you for it in a heartbeat. Currently, I am stuck on one of the most narrow topics that college debate has ever selected, and I really don't care for the analysis that this topic won't be fun when you can literally do anything outside of the mesosphere. Seriously? The number of cases about space exploration alone with dwarf our total number of different college cases. I think that is going to make reasonability on this topic is going to be pretty clear cut, no matter who the judge is. If you can't spin T back to your corner, then that isn't the judge's fault. Plus, when was the last time you got a judge to pull the trigger on T in AR? I think this is a pretty moot point. If you're worried explaining solvency to the judge and her not understanding it... I think that leads back to my original point. Learn how to tell the story better than the other team. That's what this game is, story-telling.
  8. I'll stand by what I said. I'm apparently not as much of a cynic as you are. Maybe you should simply learn how to explain a little better; after all, hundreds of Central debaters have had a lot of success in-state. You should not be an exception. As for the topic being "too hard to understand," I think that she grasps that the mesosphere ends at a certain point and that a policy action has to take place outside of that sphere in order to be topical. Reasonability is always going to moot your concerns.
  9. Are you guys kidding me? This is a resolution that would be awesome. Asteroids, Space Weapons, Inter-galaxy travel (if we don't fund it now, it will never happen), Aliens, etc. This is gonna be a hella fun topic, and you have all the uniqueness that you need considering that Obama massively cut NASA. Hell, you don't even need NASA, you just need to find a solvency advocate that encourages governmental funding of private projects. Subsidies all day.
  10. What impx off of that? Neolib/biopower?
  11. I'm with this actually. What was the critical part about it?
  12. Hows it going? There is a team in Fayetteville that is based out of Fayetteville High School. They rarely post on this forum, if ever. The current coach there is Tim Hollis, and their assistant coach is Matt Seubert. I can put you in touch with Matt for sure, and I should be able to get Tims address through him. Matts email is: mseubert@uark.edu Hope something works out.
  13. If someone has a doubles pairing or a ranking after 6, it would be appreciated. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...