Jump to content

jbaker

Member
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jbaker

  1. So can I get a 2AC relatively soon please? I just ran into some extra time so this debate can continue as unscheduled.
  2. "Congratulations on taking an introductory economics course" Thanks I'm all grown up in college now. "every state has an incentive to be the first to weaponize space because if they are left behind while others take initiative, they are in a supremely bad position." If every state has a strong incentive to be first to militarize space, why aren't they already doing so? How does militarization change the payouts against counter mobilization instead of for it, given that weaponization is confined to missile defense in the squo? If the United States took initial steps, wouldn't rational choice/games theory mandate counter militarization? Why should the framework be unilateral instead of multilateral? Who is going to launch a space pearl harbour? Who can even challenge our space program? Is your argument that some undetermined nation at some indeterminate point in the future is going to launch a sneak attack on the U.S. satellite network? Why is that in their best interest? Wouldn't they have to follow such an aggressive move with an invasion of the U.S. mainland or risk nuclear retaliation? Would space weapons developed by the Orion program be offensive or defensive? If defensive, how would they improve the technology or functioning of a missile shield? "US weaponization changes the payouts because it would allow the US to credibly threaten challengers, locking in US dominance" Do you defend U.S. Hegemony is a good thing?
  3. The plan does not specify and the 1AC does not read evidence on the agent of implementation. Neither NASA nor the DOD have the authority to do the entire plan by themselves. -Stop being shifty. Will your plantext be under the jurisdiction of Nasa? Will Darpa help research the tech? It's not an irrelevant question. Who is Corey S. Powell and Diane Martindale? What makes investigative journalists qualified to speak on sensational impacts like gamma rays, when there are complex physics involved and they are not directly acquainted with the subject matter? This seems almost like yellow journalism. "Our Dolman evidence indicates that US militerization would deter challengers from attempting to create that war. In the SQ other countries perceive US space militerization to be inevitable and will increase their capabilities to meet us. Fast and effective US militerization means that we can lock in space dominance quickly and prevent other countries from even trying to challenge us. There are many potential attacking states, our evidence is not particularly definitive on who it would be. A "space pearl harbour" would be a surprise attack on US space assets. " Your Quinn Evidence says that space militarization is a "prisoners dilemna," which according to game theory means that if one state develops space weapons then rational choice theory mandates that states counter weaponize to ensure territorial integrity. Who is the distinct challenger that makes space weaponization a pressing matter?? What form of space weapons are developed by the Orion Program? Which space weapons are the air force researching now? What is the nearest timeframe extinction scenario before we get off the rock? What is the time frame for establishing a self sufficient moon base? Mars? Do we go past the solar system? How will colonies support themselves in the event earth is destroyed?
  4. Cross-x Does Nasa or the DoD do the plan? List the warrants for extinction in your falconi evidence. How and when does a black hole of sufficient size to not instantly evaporate collide with the earth? Why is the Ottawa Citizen qualified to make scientific predictions? Your Mitchell evidence seems to indicate space weaponization is bad. How do you solve this evidence? Who is going to launch a "space pearl harbour"? What does this even mean? Do you defend that the international community would take U.S. unilateral space weaponization lying down? You read evidence citing 2004 reports on space weaponization, do you have evidence that this is obamas space foreign policy? Your IFPa evidence says bmd intercepts terrorist attacks. How? are your advantages premised on your framework?
  5. I'd prefer either to have everything typed, or for michael to record all my speeches-being out of debate has made my spread slower than some southern drawls. Panel, 5 judges makes sense, I approve brian, scott, uco professional dude, adam, someone else (Habler or Saad maybe?) Post a 1ac and the shit can hit the fan.
  6. I want a more complete judging philosophy from this "habler" if that is his real name.
  7. alex dzeda is squirrely, I veto. Chris and I agreed to 5 or 7 as legit as can be expected judges, so throw your hat into the ring of you want to rodeo at this rondezvous. also brian kersch is still a douche nothing has changed!
  8. We will go neg on the space topic. Two teams enter, one team leaves. This is ragematch thunderdome crossed with mech warrior crossed with need for speed. No set speech times.
  9. jbaker

    Heg DA

    This is the year khalilzad dies. If you're not up on the lit, ready to throw down for a billion minutes on heg you automatically lose. The counterplan I'm thinking of would be some kind of multilateral cooperation argument which could solve almost all the reasons why heg is bad generally centering around backlash and supercharge all the bandwagonning claims. Seems to solve prolif, terrorism, and all the aggression arguments while avoiding transition, security agreements, and international mediator benefits to heg. The interaction between these two arguments is fantastic and clear cut, and probably solves a lot of the soft power link turns too, which can also be dealt with by independent planks like an alternative solving the link turns to a kritik. Link turning seems like a poor decision considering the generally direction of the literature and also the fact that the affirmative is essentially perceptually shifting to an isolationist posture. Consult NATO/Japan is suddenly a pretty good strat, and one that should be discussed. The sudden appearance of literature behind a consult counterplan could lead to interesting debates. This probably applies to conditioning counterplans as well, for countries like afghanistan and iraq where we have some problems with local government.
  10. jbaker

    Heg DA

    This is the year khalilzad dies. If you're not up on the lit, ready to throw down for a billion minutes on heg you automatically lose. The counterplan I'm thinking of would be some kind of multilateral cooperation argument which could solve almost all the reasons why heg is bad generally centering around backlash and supercharge all the bandwagonning claims. Seems to solve prolif, terrorism, and all the aggression arguments while avoiding transition, security agreements, and international mediator benefits to heg. The interaction between these two arguments is fantastic and clear cut, and probably solves a lot of the soft power link turns too, which can also be dealt with by independent planks like an alternative solving the link turns to a kritik. Link turning seems like a poor decision considering the generally direction of the literature and also the fact that the affirmative is essentially perceptually shifting to an isolationist posture. Consult NATO/Japan is suddenly a pretty good strat, and one that should be discussed. The sudden appearance of literature behind a consult counterplan could lead to interesting debates. This probably applies to conditioning counterplans as well, for countries like afghanistan and iraq where we have some problems with local government.
  11. jbaker

    Heg DA

    This is the year khalilzad dies. If you're not up on the lit, ready to throw down for a billion minutes on heg you automatically lose. The counterplan I'm thinking of would be some kind of multilateral cooperation argument which could solve almost all the reasons why heg is bad generally centering around backlash and supercharge all the bandwagonning claims. Seems to solve prolif, terrorism, and all the aggression arguments while avoiding transition, security agreements, and international mediator benefits to heg. The interaction between these two arguments is fantastic and clear cut, and probably solves a lot of the soft power link turns too, which can also be dealt with by independent planks like an alternative solving the link turns to a kritik. Link turning seems like a poor decision considering the generally direction of the literature and also the fact that the affirmative is essentially perceptually shifting to an isolationist posture. Consult NATO/Japan is suddenly a pretty good strat, and one that should be discussed. The sudden appearance of literature behind a consult counterplan could lead to interesting debates. This probably applies to conditioning counterplans as well, for countries like afghanistan and iraq where we have some problems with local government.
  12. jbaker

    Heg DA

    This is the year khalilzad dies. If you're not up on the lit, ready to throw down for a billion minutes on heg you automatically lose. The counterplan I'm thinking of would be some kind of multilateral cooperation argument which could solve almost all the reasons why heg is bad generally centering around backlash and supercharge all the bandwagonning claims. Seems to solve prolif, terrorism, and all the aggression arguments while avoiding transition, security agreements, and international mediator benefits to heg. The interaction between these two arguments is fantastic and clear cut, and probably solves a lot of the soft power link turns too, which can also be dealt with by independent planks like an alternative solving the link turns to a kritik. Link turning seems like a poor decision considering the generally direction of the literature and also the fact that the affirmative is essentially perceptually shifting to an isolationist posture. Consult NATO/Japan is suddenly a pretty good strat, and one that should be discussed. The sudden appearance of literature behind a consult counterplan could lead to interesting debates. This probably applies to conditioning counterplans as well, for countries like afghanistan and iraq where we have some problems with local government.
  13. jbaker

    Heg DA

    This is the year khalilzad dies. If you're not up on the lit, ready to throw down for a billion minutes on heg you automatically lose. The counterplan I'm thinking of would be some kind of multilateral cooperation argument which could solve almost all the reasons why heg is bad generally centering around backlash and supercharge all the bandwagonning claims. Seems to solve prolif, terrorism, and all the aggression arguments while avoiding transition, security agreements, and international mediator benefits to heg. The interaction between these two arguments is fantastic and clear cut, and probably solves a lot of the soft power link turns too, which can also be dealt with by independent planks like an alternative solving the link turns to a kritik. Link turning seems like a poor decision considering the generally direction of the literature and also the fact that the affirmative is essentially perceptually shifting to an isolationist posture. Consult NATO/Japan is suddenly a pretty good strat, and one that should be discussed. The sudden appearance of literature behind a consult counterplan could lead to interesting debates. This probably applies to conditioning counterplans as well, for countries like afghanistan and iraq where we have some problems with local government.
  14. This is a Disad with huge impacts, specific links, and pretty winnable uniqueness. It should and probably will be in every 1NC next year. And it deserves a thread. First thoughts. This DA limits the topic. Any aff needs to have a built in response, which means offshore balancing, some spin on security, or an advantage that operates as an impact turn like prolif good or something. This DA is big. Debating heg is eerily similar to big stick kritiks like cap, from sustainability to massive impact turns to theoretical defenses of your framework for determining the impact. That probably effects block strategy in such a way that 8 minutes DA, 5 minutes some advantage CP, perhaps a procedural at some point to make an easier 2NR becomes very viable. Additions? Edit: As long as you're going all out on this strategy, a 1NC counterplan that solved impact turns to heg would be devestating. And, one card version of the disad http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276
  15. jbaker

    Churchill Classic

    Bakinacake and the Moulinex are splitting for this tournament. Anyone interested in holding a walkoff?
  16. Size doesn't matter, it's the skill with which you use it.
  17. jbaker

    Poverty Good

    The military relies on people in desperate economic conditions for a substantial portion of its recruits. U.S. ground forces are already pretty stretched, and removing a vital pool of candidates would not be good for heg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html If you run this, you officially have no soul.
×
×
  • Create New...