Jump to content

Snackies

Member
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About Snackies

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/11/1980
  1. Since you can win the debate of private military contractors being military presence I think you can say withdraw all Private military contractors from Iraq + afghanistan or one or the other, or all of them. Easy claim of a SP advantage, you can also probably run a cap advantage, deprivitizing the military = key to stop cap.
  2. Me to please PM me the 1NC I owe you one
  3. wow, you guys havn't seen anything. Lets see, probably the craziest is the Bee's DA, Bee's dying from cell phone radiation, poor people dont have cell phones, poverty increasing, doing plan stops this, less people in poverty / no increase in the impoverished = more phones = bees die = plants dont get pollinated = we all die... So stupid and we won the round but its still funny... Also, Chromium DA, Chromium use low now, the impoverished dont use Chromium (also chromium is essentially a mineral component used to coat most shiny metal objects [iTS CHROME]) plan reduces poverty, increases chromium usage, chrome key to _______ <--- idk what BS they put in here it was key to some stupid thing and i've seen it run twice, 1 where they actually turn it into malthus da, as in _______ key to population control, or _______ key to stopping prolif then impacts out from there
  4. Find me some cards that impact economic cost of viral outbreaks or something along those lines, saying "Viral outbreaks will cost X dollars in the world econ" even better something that says those who arn't vaccinated will harm others (herd immunity impact cards). If you can find any of that stuff I'll give you a file for it.
  5. I sent you a PM like 15 minutes ago with stuff that i'll trade for
  6. why would the aff do ICC spec? are there any cases that possibly benifit from ICC spec?
  7. even tho were arguing on a different thread I gotta totally agree with wmarble that thats pretty damn abusive and not warranted saying that the aff has to prove that all scenerios are justified, thats stupid... wmarble pointed out most of that. Also even a theocracy government dosn't enforce gods law they enforce the religion, + even then if a vigilante is enforcing gods law so what? they don't define gods law first of all. And if you're saying KKK would enforce gods law to what they thought it was, wouldnt a bunch of other guys think gods law says kill all KKK members then they would imprisoning all of those guys.... + sience KKK is technicly christian and the christian faith says dont kill they cant possibly be following gods law..
  8. uhh if you don't force aff advocacy then the aff dosn't have to advocate the ICC then all your ICC bad cards don't over apply to all potential courts... Then you say I dont have warrants why you cant say sience 1 court is bad all courts are bad, first its not like you have warrants to the say the oppisite but its just logicly implied that if 1 government screws up and kills all of their citizens, it dosn't mean that all governments will do the same thing, this example applies because an internatioanl court is a general institution, there are different forms of that institution similar to different forms of governments but just because stalin killed 30 million people dosn't mean all leaders will kill 30 million people.
  9. please explain to me why i'm wrong thanks
  10. for a single person its 10,540 a year
  11. I'll go backwards on awnsering these awnsers most of which really, dont awnser the argument they circle around it... A) "an" implies 1, ie the aff will defend a specific court An does imply a single court but it excludes to mention a single court designed is past tense, implying the court's existence Designed in present tense past tense is the U.S. ought have + tense is irrellivent at the point where a specific court isn't mentioned we can assume there is no specific court that meets what the resolution is intending a debate about C) Even if you're right, you're arguing that the aff is parametricized without a warrant why whole rez affirming is good/necessary. Resolution dosn't require paramiters, + sience we arn't really supposed to make policies and set paramiters in LD and sience they dont define a party its COMPLEATLY fair assumption that aff advocacy does not have specific paramiters. + I'ts not like these blocks are my case... the "why whole rez affirming is good/necessary" has nothing to do with the block. NEXT 1. not a reason why the aff can't defend the ICC Correct, but it is a reason why the affirmitive isn't limited to the ICC 2. ICJ violates "Prosecute" and "Criminal Court". It also technically violates "submit to the jurisdiction of" because the ICJ claims jurisdiction over all UN members. You can't "join" the ICJ, you can only join the UN and thus be under ICJ jurisdiction. (as a preempt, just because the USFG says the ICJ doesn't have jursidiction to prosecute the US doesn't make it so). I admit ICJ is for time suck moving to IACJ and IACHR 3. IACJ is regional, not international. Like previously established, it's fairly well established in the topic literature that regional courts (ie courts limited to certain nations) are distinct from international courts. Latin root inter = between nations, an INTER national court is between nations. Please prove that this court is not between nations then we will talk about it not being another example NEXT 1. doesn't make the ICC irrelevant. I said this so people dont run ICC bad therefore neg the res 2. No warrant for why the court's efficacy isn't up for debate, or why this can't be policy, or why the neg must argue the converse of the resolution (ie why CPs aren't legit). Courts efficancy isn't up for debate unless the affirmitive is forced to provide advocacy, and LD can be policy like under 2 circumstances 1. The affirmitive runs a plan 2. the judge accepts it. IF the affirmitive choses to run a advocacy plan of a specific court which the aff dosn't have to do because this isn't policy debate where the AFF is supposed to write a plan. Also the affirmitive "plan" so to speak is affirming the resolution, its not nessisarily a policy only thing for neg to run CP's the neg can still do that and not provide an actor sucha s the ICC for example neg CP: U.S. ought to submit to an international court that is evaluated by the U.N. previous to submission for the purpose of eliminating potential dangers. NEXT 1. Again, no warrant why the lack of certainty in terms of the validity of arguments somehow limits the topic (isn't that the point of debate, that claims about hte topic are DEBATABLE?) The argument is that the neg is limiting topic by narrowing evidence base. This argument meshes with 3rd point of an efficancy debate is irrellivent, so we shouldn't apply evidence thats ICC spec to every single court 2. still not a reason the ICC is bad/why the aff has to defend all courts. Its compleatly illogical to say sort of NAFTA bad = ALL TRADE AGREEMENTS BAD. they improve over time, just because one is bad dosn't mean others are. Unless you prove that the AFF has to advocate the ICC spec the ICC bad arguments shouldn't matter 3. Your claim isn't even true. I've read probably over 150 articles on the topic, and the closest articles to your interpretation say their claims are inherent to all courts, especially the ICC. If you go up and say you've read 150 articals on why other peoples claims apply to all courts... your opponant will probably laugh and ask you why you didn't read 1 of those 150 articals, also no legitimate source or author that dosn't have an ego the size of the universe, is going to say that the ICC is bad and their word means all courts are bad. ICC is a single type of courts, formed by treaty theres also courts formed by larger bodies that oversee processes in those larger bodies jurisdiction, theres lots of different courts and lots of potential for other courts and again, you still have to prove the affirmitive must advocate ICC for this argument to work. and, in addition, you still have no abuse story. Abuse is overapplication of evidence ie, nafta bad = trade agreements bad, with no warrants and forcing affirmitive advocacy is abusive, and forcing a effectivity of the courts eliminates aff ground and puts the neg on the offencive. Next Person If you can read ICC good cards, they can read ICC bad cards. By reading evidence for the ICC specifically in the AC, you're tying yourself to defending the ICC in the ways you've presented it. If you then get up in the 1AR and spike out of the links to the ICC bad arguments because you don't actually defend the ICC, you've put an incredible time skew on the neg debater. First, im not going to read ICC good cards, I dont have to advocate a court thats part of the point. I would read cards saying intl courts effective or somthing like that no ICC spec evidence, neg evidence shouldn't rely on destroying the idea that the ICC is effective, it can say intl courts inneffective and warrant it, if they find cards that say that, but not ICC. Also I never thought I would hear someone say "you've put an incredible time skew on the neg debate." seriously........ your saying neg has a time skew...... dont... just dont..... NEXT The ICJ isn't a court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. As for the inter-American courts, I would argue that any truly international court would have to be open to all states, not have geographical prerequisites. I suppose that technically (grammatically) they make sense but that's not a reason why defending the ICC is abusive. ICJ = time suck I know, my argument would be grammer inter-national between nations so 2 nations is between nations its gramaticly compleatly with the resolution and forcing a defence of the ICC is abusive because it ignores this potential court or other courts. NEXT It more or less is a policy topic, if that's how you're looking at it. There's no way to determine whether joining an ICC is a good thing "in a vacuum," we have to look to what happens in the real world when we join it. If you're looking to solely an ideals-based debate, then the only real ground the neg has is like, multilateralism bad. I would argue that's a lot less fair for debate than specifying the ICC, which is much more predictable. I wouldn't say you can't make an argument for not specifying; if you want to be vague from the outset and talk about the general benefits an ICC, that's your call. But I don't think you'll be able to win that specifying the ICC is abusive. Just because it looks like a policy topic dosn't mean we have to run plans in the Aff and identify, an actor, an specific action, and an advocacy for that action. We affirm the plan we are given we can make it policy if we make our own plans but if you did that you wouldn't be running these blocks. Specifying the ICC means that the neg side essentially drops the affirmitive goal solvancy and attacks the link saying resolution will not do those things because AN INTERNATIONAL court bad. The reason this is abuse is because the only way they can attack the link is to replace the words An international court with ICC then find ICC bad and say you don't solve, if they found international courts bad evidence and said you dont solve, TOTALLY different case. No, there is probably a lot more evidence written about the ICC than the theory of international courts in general. Besides, evidence about the actual ICC will inherently be better because it's not just pure conjecturing, it's based on empirical results. Maybe you can win on empirical results for ICC dosn't prosicute that well but then aff can say U.S. key to effectivness of ICC which I have like 10 cards for, that argument is easy to win on aff, at that point all you have is ICC is corrupt, which is not empirically proven in fact theres no evidence suggesting that at all, nobody is saying the ICC is corrupt at all really. Find a card that says that please. Thats theorizing to say ICC could violate nat security or somthing like that. And on top of that aff dosn't have to advocate ICC so even if you beat every point on this block I can still read U.S. is key to legit, then you got no empiricly proved arguments on the flow. end game Looking foward to more awnsers to awnser.
  12. the most annoying t is more of an extention of t, so on a terrible version of windians, i mean terrible version I dont know what they were doing but they basicly didn't have any inherancy so we ran increase t saying that it creates incentives not increases, their extension / counter to our definition was increase means to increase numaricly, and they said there was nothing so a numarical 0, and they increase to somthing so a numarical 1... so they were increasing from nothing to somthing... hehe... annoyed me so much...
  13. On a round that turned out to be battle of Cap K then aff tried to go cap good neg had false promises of cap (Stupid round) Judge glared at them and said "I wish mcarthy was here because he would kick all of you red gaurds back to the land of communists." He furthers "communism is scary" And furthers "if one of you had said that the american god given free market works I would have voted for them, because communism is a truely terrible thing" That was a friends round Heres one of my rounds RFD (I was neg) and this is the entire RFD (aff won) "even though the aff case didn't matter, I had to vote aff. The aff was flailing around. I had to vote Aff" Thats the entire RFD
  14. awsome story, there was a series of snickers that on the wrapper they said substantially bigger! and of corse all sourts of explosion looking lines around it then right next to it it said 20% bigger and when someone asked what substantial was they pulled out a snickers wrapper and said 20% bigger!
  15. w/e heres some off the cuff blocks. 1. Resolution non specific, nothing binding us to the ICC, we can use evidence from the ICC but just because evidence says the ICC is bad dosn't mean that every single IC is going to be bad. 2. the ICC isn't the only court that meets these pre-requisits, there is the ICJ, the IACHR (inter american court of human rights) and the IACJ Inter american court of justice (or some similar name) that both meet the resolutions guidelines just as far as the ICC does. 3. Debates of effectivness of a court are compleatly irrellivent, the resolution intends a debate between two ideals and 2 points of view not one side saying that the other side is trying to achieve the same thing except they are advocating a bad court. This debate is not resolved: The ICC is an effective court prosicuting crimes against humanity, a debate about this is untopical and the AFFIRMITVE DOES NOT NEED TO WIN BASED ON ADVOCACY OF A SPECIFIC COURT, this isn't policy. 4. Evidence base claims are false, with more then a trillion pages of information that is viable evidence, claims that evidence only talks about the ICC are false because there is probably more literature on the theory of internatioanl courts in general then there is on the ICC specificly. and evidence is only invalid if the negitive is trying to over apply the claim, such as saying this evidence says ICC bad therefore ALL courts bad. Theres 4 blocks, some of the basics I'm interested to hear awnsers to them. I'll post the good ones on saturday.
×
×
  • Create New...