Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Okay

About LoveAGoodLay

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/04/1991
  1. And no this is completely wrong... stop smoking crack
  2. ZPE is BAD ASS ! I cut a 1AC and a CP out of it and its straight gangsta! The catch is if u deal with a lot of lay judges your screwed because lays only vote for shit that is easy like wind power or nuke power. If you have to explain something to a lay while the NEG just says ur full of it this equals u getting a LOSS! BUT the 1AC and the CP are undefeated when judged by Flow judges because once you explain how its viable all the NEG can say is your authors are crazy in which you just read a bunch of Solvency from different ppl or that ZPE can never happen and then u read Hathway in 07' and point out that its already been produced on a small scale !!! ZPE = Single Best Case EVER
  3. Alright. Thanks for the insight Fox On Socks and i hope you fall off a cliff dymanicchuck
  4. On neg Two Scenarios of why you must vote neg One is vagueness of the resolution SUB A 1. the resolution states "vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law" 2. the word "failed" is to vague for specific analysis on the resolution 3. no matter the the txt book definition of "failed" every individual has a different interpritation of the word 4. since the spectrum of failed is so vague voting aff will allow for vigilantism to be justified is every situation as long as the vigilanti personally inferred failure within the situation SUB B 1. the resolution says "the law" 2. what the hell is "the law"? 2A. is "the law" when an idividual breaks a single law such as j-walking and it isnt inforced 2B. is there a thresh hold for "the law" such as when a majority of laws havent been enforced 2C. if there is a thresh hold does it pertain to local state or federal laws or all three at once? 2D. is "the law" when EVERY law hasnt been enforced 2E. if the correct answer is 2B, 2C, or 2D who is going to keep a checklist so we know when the thresh hold has been crossed Two is perpetuation of violence 1. Vigilantism is about individuals policing situations on their own accord 2. thus when someone is supposedly infrindging on the law the vigilanti will step in and stop them 3. it is empiracally proven that vigilatis will use any means necissary including violence 4. when a vigilanti uses violence to enforce a law that is being broken the vigilanti himself is infact breaking another law thus another law isnt being enforced 5. under the theory that a vigilanti will step in to enforce laws not being enforced another vigilanti will have to step in to enforce the law the first vigilanti broke in order to stop the first individual 6. this results in a perpetuation of violence and breaking of laws which voids the entire reason of why we would ever consider the resolution just
  5. Well i scrolled through everything and didnt see any analysis on this so tell me what you think On aff 1. the resolution states "vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law" 2. the word -the- infers the entirety of the law so basically the entire legal system and not just one individual law 3. the government only has truly 2 main jobs - 1 is make the laws 2 is enforce them 4. if the government is falling to enforce -the law- then there is also no point in them making any more individual laws to add 5. Since the government has failed at its two main jobs our society is on the brink of anarchy 6. Anarchy will turn into a dark age and basically destroy society 7. Vigilantism HAS to be justified "when the government fails to enforce the law" no matter the consequences because it will be our only hope of saving societal structure
  6. Truman B qualled Round Now is Truman A vs Fort Osage A Truman B vs Park Hill South A
  7. Where did you get the idea for this case? Did you just randomly have a dream about natives and their water supply...
  8. the guy above me is major legit so whatever he gives you should be more than enough but i can give you some full camp files if you want those as well just email me jtwhite2518@gmail.com
  9. openev doesnt have a neg for thorium. spend the 4 dollars and just buy it off of evazon
  10. first off how did you change my post so that -Missouri- is in red secondly i find mucho adolescent humor in it and third this isnt even a fair username debate because i dont even understand your username... is it big goron ? what does that mean??? ...and mysteriously the red goes away... strange...
  11. Yeah that or just pray i dont hit pembroke on neg the rest the year. Does anybody else run this? Hell Pembroke with your dominance of the KC circuit this year and seeing that i'm not in your district you wanna just give me a copy of ur neg blocks to native brownfields, new, and zizek iwannaleave@gmail.com
  12. Alright. Good Call thanks for the explan!
  • Create New...