Jump to content

ChetanFS

Member
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About ChetanFS

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/14/1993

Profile Information

  • Location
    Candy Mountain
  • Occupation
    Professional Hobo
  1. ChetanFS

    SPS

    It was ubiquitous from my tournament sampling. And with SPS, solvency isn't what you have to be worried about. We have the technology, solvency isn't an issue, we've been beaming microwaves through the ionosphere for the last 15 years, just read the literature and you'll be able to defend it.
  2. lol there's a reason that they have great take-outs. I spent a few hours looking over the lit and saw there were major flaws. There's a reason $10 billion is going to fund deteureum-tritium fusion and the guy arguing for helium-3 is doing it from the basement of his lab... there are extremely large hurdles to pass.
  3. you're ridiculous in a good way. thanks for everything.

  4. the problem is translating that into a specific voting issue that lets you win. If you have to look at both sides to prevent a full entrenchment of exceptionalist mindsets, than that's a reason for a double-win or a double-loss, it's not a reason for you to win the ballot. Additionally, the way the argument is phrased here would ensure it contradicts any normative claims made in the rest of your 1AC. oh briar...
  5. the status was 'reps'? from what i know, that's not a status of a k, that's a type of a k. I could be wrong, but maybe that's just another way to say that the k is a gateway issue. Like T = gateway issue. it's not important if you can justify yourself. a K can be the same way. justify your representations/the way you speak/your reasoning, then one can actually begin to debate things in the round. running a k as a "gateway issue" is basically just condo in disguise.
  6. ChetanFS

    Multiple Links?

    Yes you can. on another note, even if they throw theory at your just (1) throw some back or (2) answer it (if they're throwing theory at 'multiple links bad' there's no way it can be good at all).
  7. ChetanFS

    Hillman K

    i'm not sure what they guy's response was, but my answer: the alt is an embracing of low-level conflicts, like the one in iraq, conflicts that DON'T lead to nuclear war. if we suppress warfare (like the aff) then that leads to giant disastrous wars that CAN kill us all (proven by 100 years of relative peace before ww1)
  8. PD put out a massive cap file last year, look through it for impacts (like terrorism) otherwise there are a few generic ways: resource wars root cause war (there are other internals, this is the one i remember off the top of my head) cap -> commodification also works.
  9. ChetanFS

    Black Swan K

    i've read it and i agree with tommy. i don't see how it could be formulated into a criticism of anything other then predictions. EDIT: from what i remember of the book, a section of it would be pretty amazing for an econ ADV CP
  10. so does space exploration. spending lots of money/going to outer space/making scientific push/etc etc. there's always somethign generic that spreads to everything. generic 'incentives bad' can be replaced by generic 'going to outer space bad'
  11. there were tons put out by camps. look at all the opium affs or CT operations kill COIN. that assumption right there is not necessarily true. refuting that assumption is the basis for all COIN good affs.
  12. security, cap, fem, dng (both their entire theory and just security/cap spin-offs), orientalism, empire, normativity
  13. yes, it's quite common in our local circuit
  14. Wait... a spending disad? whoa. dude, that's so revolutionary. on a more serious note, lol i couldn't resist, you set yourself up for that one. and btw, spending disad = off case. so it's technically not on-case. only adv of running it as on-case is throwing uniquiness out of the window.
×
×
  • Create New...