Jump to content

Angry Grandpa

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Angry Grandpa

  1. I believe you may be talking about Idealism (that objects do not exist themselves, but consist entirely of man's perception of them.) If that is the case, I could provide you with supporting evidence, but I am still a bit confused about what exactly you are looking for.
  2. To me, its seems a lot more reasonable and much less ambitious if you try to prove nuclear war is impossible as opposed to promoting it. I have a card for that if you are interested in a trade. I would like a card that can difinitively link racism as a cause of terrorism (with legitimate quals and no supertagged, like the junk in some camp files). Otherwise, if you are adament about glorifying nuke war you could always use "death is not bad" cards.
  3. Thanks for the advice. Sorry that I wasn't more specific about the DA. Basically, the form of the case that I was most familiar with was claiming overpopulation advantages, which would require the actual abortions occurring. I have cards that deny the overpopulation impact, and had intended for the DA to be run in addition to harms mitigation. I changed my impact to drug abuse, which I have cards to say is a fate worse that death to help in the impact calc. As for the fact that women who are not in poverty receiving abortions and incurring my impact, I had intended to argue that the affirmative would increase the people who suffer from the impacts, whereas the negative would keep people in poverty from the impacts of drug abuse. Thanks again for the advice.
  4. I've been working on constructing an abortion DA to counter the abortion Aff. I'm able to link mothers having abortions to incurring post dramatic stress disorder, but cannot find any uniqueness that says people in poverty cannot afford abortions. As a last resort I could try cross applying the Inherency of the Aff case as my Uniqueness, but I find that risky and potentially unfair to the Affirmative. Does anyone have any evidence that says people in poverty currently cannot or struggle to afford abortions, or do you know of a source where I may be able to find this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  5. I've already made a welfare reform Aff. Basically I claim the welfare crisis (too many people on welfare) as my advantage. What I do is give a lump sum increase on state's welfare funding, removing the promise of later increasing funding, what is currently an incentive for states to swell welfare roles in an attempt to secure more dollars. That much stops the status quo from going over the welfare crisis brink. My solvency also steps back from the brink by allowing welfare recipients to count college education as work activity. My terminal impacts are economic collapse, nuclear war, martial law, socialism, starvation, and bioweapons. I definitely think that the case has potential.
  6. Hello Debateman, or should I say Joe the Plumber? (your about me statistics are very confusion). Anyway, we should try an online debate.


    If we do an actually relevant debate to the actual resolution we might be able to finish it (I never got in even my 1NC).

    Let me know if you ever want to debate.

  8. I feel strage replying again right after myself. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could explain the solvency to me. I only heard the case from one team, and their case didn't solve. a.) The only solvency that even suggested that Native Americans would respond to the extension of the PTC was a quote from someone who was talking hypothetically about how the power grid could be built up strong if the Native Americans set to it, but never did it give any assurance that the Native Americans would begin rebuilding America's infrastructure. b.) How does this overcome the inherent barrier? At least from the version of the case I heard, the Native Americans are too far in poverty to be able to afford wind turbines. The PTC is not money in the pocket though. It is just a deduction from a whole myriad of taxes that have to be paid after you begin producing electricity. The Native Americans would not be getting a bajillion dollars, but rather would have to battle many more taxes just to be able to produce. c.) They can't get the PTC until they are producing power, hence the "PRODUCTION tax credit". They have to overcome their inherent barrier to even approach solvency. So the solvency should have already happened. d.) Also, I believe that the PTC cannot be applied residentially, only commercially. I thought that only businesses were eligible. The Native Americans would have to form their own corporations in order to even receive the tax credit. If someone could explain this it would be appreciated. I can't see how this can be such an acclaimed case if there are these many holes. Either I am misinterpreting the information or the team was running a version of the case that was not complete.
  9. Does anyone think it is valid to run racism K on the grounds that the Natives Case is making a solution to a problem only available to people of a certain race? Maybe that's the common approach and I just didn't realize it.
  10. COME ON ZEEBA!!! WE NEED TO DEBATE ABOUT SOMETHING!!! We don't have to use evidence if you don't want to. It might be cumbersome anyway.

  11. Hello, Phonan. I noticed that nobody was talking to you, so Hi.

  12. Sorry about the deleting rampage. I'm not crazy, really. Anyway, I think you must all have been killed by hitmen or something because none of you respond. If any of you are alive, I would love to try an online debate.

  13. "You won on Solvency but the Aff had more structure. I vote Aff."--Clueless Judge
  14. Hey, no one goes here anymore. Anyway, Obama has successfully DESTROYED the concept of Inherency on this years polocy topic. I wonder how the coaches will handle this one.

  15. ZEEBA ZEEBA ZEEBA!!!!! Nice to hear from you. You shouldn't be flashing 238 around. I haven't published the paper on it yet.

  16. I am the heir to the throne of your dynasty.

  • Create New...