Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About fukoh

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/29/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Location
    Oak Park, IL
  1. I think I know the conversation you're referring to, and under no conditions should anyone trust anything that person says/has said. I understand official OPRF announcements have been sparse, but trust me, we are telling you everything that we know. This is what I know: there WILL be a tournament. It will not be at OPRF. Details to come.
  2. interesting number choice
  3. First , they’ve dropped a voter on the counterplan flow. The link will be explained there, but I’ll do my impact work up here. 100% dropped in the 2nr, means you grant us 100% risk of a voter here. This comes as a reason to both not vote on t and to throw the rest of the debate away (we’ll win it regardless, but look here for a way out). He never says its new, don’t do work for him. He gives zero analysis as to why t outweighs theory, means any analysis I give you you prefer. Vagueness outweighs T- 1. Even if we’re untopical, he can just make up some random shit cp to solve our entire aff without giving us a predictable mechanism or any opportunity to garner offense- means debates become meaningless regardless of topicality 2. Theory has the clearest in-round abuse story- xap from the t flow that things like the wiki check extremely unpredictable affs, at least to some extent- vague cps are more unpredictable, ruin debate more, and have prevented clear education in this round. Vote here to right the clearest wrong. 3. He doesn’t do analysis why severance outweighs, and it doesn’t- any and all abuse on the counterplan is totally justified by the fact that its bullshit 4. Even if you don’t pull the trigger here, use it as an excuse to ignore the t flow 5. Xap his args on severance- we access them better for the reasons above And, I’ll answer all he says about 1ar new blah blah blah here- 1. 1AR can’t group? Blow me. New link extrapolations and solvency explanations in the block justify new spins on arguments fundamentally in the 2ac (such as perm: do cp, where the underlying thesis is that the counterplan would either link to the disad or not solve the mp advantage) Making link arguments based on terrorism in the block totally justifies an explanation of the link t/o in terms of GA vs Commercial aviation- thereby justifying an explanation of our no link. 2. I’ll answer specific claims on those flows T Nice job conceding the only major offense we had against the interpretation 1. Pull across that THERE IS NO USFG AS AN ACTOR. He doesn’t breathe a word on this in the 2nr- don’t do work for him. This argument has been in the debate since the 2ac, and been cold stone conceded (the tastiest kind) throughout the entire debate. This acts as independent offense against the interpretation that he has no respite from- means you prefer any counter-interp that makes sense (which would be ours). Turns all of his standards if there cannot be a functional affirmative in the world of voting neg- literally makes it impossible for the aff to win. This destroys any coherent education or predictability. Even if he wins every other standard, debate becomes impossible for the aff if he wins- means you default to any alternative interpretation. 2. Concedes that we prevent stale debate- means that even if it is initially harder for negative, we allow for better long term education, which outweighs fairness since debate is a stepping stone to political activism. Learning about agent implementation is important to actually doing anything politically- compounded by the fact that THERE IS NO USFG. 3. We meet- normal means is legit. Saying the USfg in the plan text implies individual senators, the president, etc., people never say everything they do in their plan text, would force the entire 1ac to be a plan text. No reason us normal means-ing the rest of the USfg is abusive- if we had said USfg instead of FAA in the plan text, it wouldn’t have made us more predictable. His analysis about a “topical version of the plan” just proves that we either a. are topical or b. untopical but that there is no actual impact. Substituting “USfg” for whichever actor doesn’t prevent the squirley notion of the affirmative. 4. Even if he wins you vote on potential abuse, you vote on in-round abuse first since it’s the most relevant and effective- this means you vote on vagueness. He doesn’t even attempt to give a reason he has been abused in-round. 5. The we meet isn’t FX- its that normals means would have the entire USfg participate, not effectually but directly. Still, all his reasons FX is uniquely bad are new- means I get new answers. FX is good because it allows more ground for the negative, which is the key internal to education since a plan can be predictable but thereby severely limit the scope of a debate, hurting the educational capacity by making debates stale. Additionally, FX is inevitable as long as we keep our plan texts under 5 minutes- there’s no way we could possibly specify EVERYTHING. Now that that bullshits over, let’s talk about space. CP- I’m really happy they went for the counterplan, because it makes my job ahelluva lot easier. We’ll concede that the counterplan would mandate compliance with the montreal protocol. This would mean that there would have to be a shift to a new fuel source in general aviation- he has provided no evidence that any other fuel source besides avgas or ethanol could be used. Since avgas violates the protocol, the counterplan would have to shift to ethanol, making it plan plus and linking to the net benefit. Don’t buy that there’s some magical fuel source that doesn’t link to the da, they won’t tell it what it is, that’s why this is so god damn vague. Either they can’t solve montreal- extinction da impacted later, or are abusive and vague, or link to the DA and therefore noncompetitive. Extend perm: do the counterplan Perm isn’t severance, that’s above. They have to win there is some non-conventional fuel that is not ethanol that could be used, and they haven’t provided anything of the sort, means you default that they are the affirmative. We are the ONLY ones that actually have evidence on this, that’s Shauck and Zanin, and they concede you default to that. And even if it IS severance, they concede from the NATO flow that severance is key to check neg biases, as in this instance of random ass fuels. That’s a conceded external impact to debate and a reason to vote aff. And, if they win there is some fuel besides ethanol, they still link to the net benefit, and perm: do both is totally legit. Big mistake conceding China- has a couple of major implications a. THEY JUST CONCEDED AN EXTINCTION SCENARIO ZOMGWTF. There has been ZERO impact defense pre-2nr; all their reasons why we can’t access nuclear war are bullshit and unwarranted- nowhere do they read evidence supporting claims about china not going nuclear, or nuclear not killing everyone. Default to 100% probability before timeframe, that’ll be below. b. Makes offense on the disad impossible- they’re conceding out of the 1AR that china instability pulls in Russia- even if it’s a weak arg, “its conceded and therefore true.” Means they can never have a unique impact because a negative ballot still causes Russia war inevitably. Even if their ev is specific to NMD, doesn’t mean that a different war involving the same powers wouldn’t have the same effect- no analysis or warrants why it would. c. Klintworth is huge- draws in all the worlds major powers, inevitably goes nuclear. This is the tie breaker between ozone and Russia. The impact is not JUST Russia and US, but every other nation. DA- Aff ballot now, 3 reasons- 1. No unique link means severely reduced risk of an impact- default to montreal and china, he’s given us a 100% risk of both 2. Lee Quinn is sexy 3. Zero impact defense on montreal, only extinction scenario. I call shenanigans, on the caldicott card, it says "the total loss of human agricultural and societal support systems would result in the loss of almost all humans on Earth." As opposed to "Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist... the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth." At this point it becomes clear that we control the only existential threat to humanity, means you auto-vote aff- its try or die. A negative ballot is literally a ballot for extinction- becomes impossible to garner any offense since saving lives by voting neg is incoherent when we win we’re all dead. Additionally, we have at least some defense on the disad, means the ozone impact is infinitely more probable at 100%- means that even if he wins an equal magnitude, you still vote aff. Lastly, don’t vote on timeframe, its bullshit- surviving an extra year or two makes literally no difference in the course of humanity- he doesn’t give any logical reason it would. Default to the more probable, more existential threat. 4. One last thing (not really a reason to vote aff, but eh)- can’t turn montreal, its not effing warming alright, its ozone. No evidence on how a nuclear explosion would interfere with the production or destruction of ozone, don’t grant it to him and reward lazy debate. Assume that we still access 100% solvency. Line By Line 1. Prefer our no link- even if Czechs want alt energy, zero analysis as to why they care about General Aviation. This isn’t the ‘fun’ aviation that involves terrorists, this is the boring aviation that gets you your dinner. In the context of aviation, the Czechs just don’t care. This evidence becomes more devasting when you take into account the terrible link threshold they have- that’s next. Even if the card isn’t great, acts as a reason why their link makes no fucking sense. They have no evidence that Czech is watching our governments acts, which means they rely off US news reports, that’s common sense. And hey, news reports don’t get made about our aff. 2. Blow me, I don’t see why ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS thrown at biofuels development WOULDN’T make the Czechs happy but switching less than 1% of our oil usage to ethanol would. Additionally, to the center postdates their link evidence, means they can’t access any claims that it assumes this shift. The only warrants in their evidence is the following: “Energy security: diversification of energy resources, renewable and alternative energy” Nowhere does this make any distinction between the plan and what’s already been done (AKA this bs analysis in the 2nr that their evidence makes some magical comparison between research and mandate). They effectually makes it impossible for them to get a unique link to the plan- either the Czechs have already signed on, or they never will. The plan just won’t change this. This perception argument is a joke when literally our card says “The federal government announced that help will be given to refinance existing ethanol and biodiesel factories whose owners face credit trouble, guaranteeing loans for the construction of new bio-refineries, and speeding funding to help producers of cellulosic crops (portions of crops that are not used for food, such as corn stalks).” If the fucking USFG on a news report comes out and says that it is increasing alternative energy, and the disad hasn’t happened, no way our plan even comes close to linking, especially when its not perceived, as per our Flight Times evidence. Even if this does’’t take out 100% of the disad, means you look at it with extreme caution, and default to our impacts on all questions of probability. If you default to the offense paradigm standard because you are an MSU hack, weigh the DROPPED china advantage against this is a entire impact turn.
  4. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! NOT A CASUAL PLAYER?!?!?!? WHAT WILL I DOOOO?!? i'm sorry for having fun while i play. maybe one day i will be as 1337 as you and we can pwnz0r n00bs together, because you are t3h kewl.
  5. you caught me, i don't play cod4 the point i was making was that in tf2, this "rigidness" forces a more coherent teamwork (the point of any mp, in my opinion), since one person cannot do it all. i realize cod4 is more customizable, but this also allows for a more fun and integrated experience where you work together with your team. ...and tfc is good. your point? that's what i'm saying... that orange box is only on steam, and buying it in the store downloads it from steam that wasn't what i was trying to say- obviously tools play tf2- my point was that just because more people buy cod4 because it looks more "realistic" (although i prefer tf2's unique cartoony graphics) doesn't mean the op should buy it. what? that's not what i was saying at all. Maybe i don't understand your point, but I was saying that the argument that there's so many people on live doesn't have any relevance as long as the op is planning on using a pc. maybe it has a following on pc (as if tf2 doesn't?), all i'm saying is that using xbl as a tie breaker is bs. maybe that's how it was, my friend just bought the orange box and he had to download about 75% of portal, hl2, etc off of the internet. Also, this is irrelevant since my point was that you would end up on steam eventually (which you did too.)
  6. because the most played games are definitely the best ones, as if that were any indication. a bunch of college/high school tools can buy cod4, that doesn't make it better. there are ENOUGH people on tf2 for it to be fun, its not like all the servers are barren. also, the games are the same, its just that when you say there's a ton of people on live, there won't be that many people on the pc servers. true, they have deals (like for the spy/sniper update, it was for cheap) but you're suggesting he spend, say 20 dollars of his own money to save five dollars instead of spending 25 dollars of someone elses money? how does that make sense again? granted, if he's going to be out-spending his gift card, he might as well get deals where he can. but if he's only looking to spend what he has, it doesn't make sense to pay his own money first.
  7. too bad he's getting for the pc you can't not buy the orange box off steam... when you buy it in store it just acts as a gift card for buying it on steam, since that's the only place you can access servers for tf2 buy the orange box, more diversity. even if cod4 is slightly better in some respects , you get THREE awesome games for the price of one. also, hl2>cod4 singleplayer, and tf2>cod4 mp, because of tf2's unique class system forcing a more stylized play (unlike in cod4, where every class, regardless of main weapon, still has a pistol or a grenade, classes in tf2 are very specialized and therefore force more teamwork to work) and then there's always portal as the tie breaker.
  8. yes, the argument that any way for the cp to solve montreal protocol would make it de facto non-competitive was, in fact, in the 2ac dude, our entire 1ac is about how without a shift to ethanol, there is no alternative but noncompliance. its YOUR job to show evidence contrary istead of pretending there's some magical fuel source that no one has thought about. the point is that the conventional fuel violates the protocol- give me an example of a 'conventional' fuel that doesn't. or just admit your logic makes no sense.
  9. 1. No, its not, its been the thesis of perm: do the counterplan since the cross-x of the 1nc. 2. really, dude? you mean the entire 1ac where we read evidence current conventional fuels violate the protocol? all i'm asking for is WHAT conventional fuel you magically whip out of your ass that could a. not link to the net-benefit, b. comply with the protocol (not use lead) and c. work in general aviation and if you read ANY evidence ANYWHERE about how this would actually work?
  10. well, as long as there's no 1nr, i guess i'll continue c-x Why does the counterplans elimination of avgas usage (thus securing energy supply domestically) not link to the n-b while the plans elimination of the same usage does?
  11. last question- why wouldn't this make the cp link to the net benefit? then the 1NR can go up.
  12. sigh. 1. not my girlfriend 2. she had asked me to send her crappy jazz music, so don't use that against me? I listen to good jazz music trust me 3. Peter Sadowski molests children
  13. sorry "because you advocate the USFG sending medical teams to africa and not have the FAA authorize avgas. Lol but please go for perm do the cp, we'd enjoy a bye this round... NO, the china part is strictly plan plus. We do the plan as having the FAA be a federal agency complying with the MP, as per the 1NC cp text. explain why that is at all severance. don't be an ass. the ziweng and jihani evidence. the one that reads, literally only the following- An unprecedented need for resources is now driving China's foreign policy. Beijing's access to foreign resources is necessary both for continued economic growth and,China's social stability. Please let me know when you find a reason this warrants a lack of oil in the squo." He conceded the "whole USfg" could do it but that would be under a definition of the "whole USfg" we meet (as I said before, congress would have to appropriate any funds, supreme court allows, etc.) So the answer is that no case meets your interpretation? Because you never actually gave me an example like i asked for. there's a difference between dropping something and not covering it extensively... by this logic you dropped ospec in the 1NC. people who call people tools are tools. and i'm sorry, you were just getting a teensy bit angry and I was hurt. And don't make me lol, you definitely don't know this case... as evidenced by this very response! You keep rambling about how you "comply" with the Montreal Protocol, but you won't tell me how you do it! Do you understand that the only way to comply is to eliminate avgas? Now tell me how you eliminate avgas, or that you don't eliminate avgas. But please tell me one or the other and stop skirting around the issue. That wasn't the question. We were talking about the toopicality of permutations. okay, just explain to me why the institutional deficiencies regarding terrorism don't reflect bigger institutional deficiencies? You're ONE recent card just says that US <3's NATO, not that they're actually worth anything. Or at least doesn't give warrants why they are.
  14. First- you want to answer the #2 and 3 on nato from the first cross-x? Second- you want to answer my questions about the china solvency on the advantage cp? ...or just admit i'm right, that's cool too.
  • Create New...