Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by belakor

  1. Go to one of the following wikis - they have cards like this: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Wheeler+%28GA%29+-+Daniel+Kreus+%26+Pranav+Shanoy http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Woodward+Academy+%28GA%29+-+Rahim+Shakoor+%26+Jason+Sigalos
  2. Why would you possibly trade for a heg good K? Go to the wiki and cut from this: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010-2011+%E2%80%94+Westminster+%28GA%29+%E2%80%94+Ellis+Allen+%26+Daniel+Taylor+%E2%80%94+Negative#x-Heg K-1nc Hegemony good K The stuff is at the bottom of the page. You don't need a 'critical impact' - just get Kagan or Zhang and Shi - read a real impact. Also, get the following few cards: US intervention is critical to world peace – there is no substitute Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, ‘03 (Jean Bethke, “Just War Against Terrorism†pg. 169) The heavy burden being imposed on the United States does not require that the United States remain on hair-trigger alert at every moment. But it does oblige the United States to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to whether it can intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harm—with the primary objective of interdiction so that democratic civil society can be built or rebuilt. This approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda, in Bosnia, or in the sort of "advice" given to Americans by some of our European critics. At this point in time the possibility of international peace and stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely, though not exclusively, on American power. Many persons and powers do not like this fact, but it is inescapable. As Michael Ignatieff puts it, the "most carefree and confident empire in history now grimly confronts the question of whether it can escape Rome's ultimate fate."9 Furthermore, America's fate is tied inextricably to the fates of states and societies around the world. If large pockets of the globe start to go bad—here, there, everywhere (the infamous "failed state" syndrome)—the drain on American power and treasure will reach a point where it can no longer be borne. Cultural imperialism is best – recognizing the superiority of Western values is key to human survival Tracinski ’01, editor and publisher of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily and formed member of the Ayn Rand Institute, (Robert, October 8, “An Empire of Ideals†http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076) The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism. Everyone has finally awakened to the deadly threat posed by terrorism, and some are even willing to admit that the source of this threat is Islamic fundamentalism. But almost no one is prepared to name the long-term answer to that threat. The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism. "Cultural imperialism" is not exactly the right term. That is a smear-tag created by the academic left, which hates everything good about Western culture and tries to dismiss that culture's worldwide popularity by blaming it on some kind of coercive conspiracy. The same purpose is served by another leftist smear-tag, "cultural genocide," which sounds like mass-murder but actually refers to people in the Third World choosing to adopt Western manners and attitudes, the poor things. The inventors of these smears are the same people who clamor for a "multicultural" society, ostensibly a society that tolerates many different cultural influences--except, of course, any influence coming from the West. The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas, art and entertainment produced in civilized countries. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes; an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion; an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe. But woe unto he who suggests that Western culture might be worth spreading. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi learned this when he stated that: "We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and--in contrast with Islamic countries--respect for religious and political rights." The reaction was immediate and fierce. The Belgian prime minister scolded that Berlusconi's remarks could have "dangerous consequences." Gosh, they might cause us to overthrow Middle Eastern dictatorships! The head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, immediately denounced Berlusconi's statements as "racist"--an accusation which itself equates race with culture, as if Arabs are biologically determined to embrace theocracy. Ironically, Moussa got this idea from the West--that is, from our own hordes of anti-Western intellectuals. One such intellectual expressed the prevailing dogma perfectly: "one cannot speak of the superiority of one culture over another." What no one challenged, however, was Berlusconi's factual description of the values held by the West versus those held by the Islamic world. Nearly every country in the Middle East is a dictatorship. These countries are wracked with the chronic poverty bred by dictatorship--with the exception of the rulers, who pocket money from oil reserves discovered, drilled and made valuable by Western technology. All of these countries are overrun--or are on the verge of being overrun--by religious fanatics who ruthlessly suppress any manifestation of the pursuit of happiness in this world, from baring one's ankles to watching television. We broadcast to these oppressed people the Western message of liberty, prosperity and happiness--in forms as low-brow as Baywatch or as sophisticated as the Declaration of Independence. This is the "imperialism" that terrifies Islamic fundamentalists. They should be terrified--because they know that in a fair competition, their values cannot win. On the one side, there are the Western values of intellectual freedom, science, prosperity, individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. On the other side, there are the centuries-old scourges of theocracy, superstition, poverty, dictatorship and mass-murder. Is one of these alternatives superior to the other? You bet your life it is. We must begin a campaign of education designed to export Western values to the barbarous East--and that campaign must be led by our intellectuals, not denounced by them. This war must be fought with televisions, radios, books and movies--and by the intransigently pro-Western statements of our political and intellectual leaders. This is a battle between opposite and irreconcilable cultures, and if we want to survive, we must begin with the conviction that our culture deserves to win. A physical war against terrorist states--a war fought with bombs, rockets and guns against the governments that support terrorism--has now become a necessity. But that battle is only a first step. In the long run, we can only stop the re-emergence of new Islamic fanatics by disinfecting the cultural miasma in which they breed. And light, the light of benevolent Western ideals, is the best disinfectant. West good: not perfect, but comparatively better for happiness and freedom. Even if they win their framework of being intellectuals, we must celebrate and teach Western values in this debate round for Western civilization to survive Kors, ’01 – Prof history @ U Penn (Summer 2001, Alan, American Foreign Relations, “America and the West: Triumph Without Self Beliefâ€, pg. 354-355) The fruits of that civilization have been an unprecedented ability to modify the remediable causes of human suffering, to give great agency to utility and charity alike; to give to each individual a degree of choice and freedom unparalleled in ail of human history; to offer a means of overcoming the station in life to which one was born by the effort of one's labor, mind, and will. A failure to understand and to teach that accomplishment would be its very betrayal. To the extent that Western civilization survives, then, the hope of the world survives to eradicate unnecessary suffering; to speak a language of human dignity, responsibility, and rights linked to a common reality: to minimize the depredations of the irrational, the unexamined, the merely prejudicial in our lives: to understand the world in which we find ourselves, and. moved by interest and charity, to apply that knowledge for good. The contest, then, is between the realists and the antirealists, and the triumph of the West ultimately depends on its outcome. The failure to assess the stakes of the struggle between the West and its communist adversary always came from either a pathological self-hatred of one's own world or at the least, from a gross undervaluation of what the West truly represented in the history of mankind. The West has altered the human relationship to nature from one of fatalistic helplessness to one of hopeful mastery. It has made possible a human life in which biological atavism, might be replaced by cultural value, the rule of law, individuation, and growing tolerance. It also created an intellectual class irrationally devoted to an adversarial stance. That adversarial view of the West, in the past generation at least, had become a neo-Gramscian and thus nee-Marxist one in which the West was seen as an unparalleled source of the arbitrary assignment of restrictive and life-stultifying roles. The enemies of the West—for some, in practice; for others, increasingly in the ideal—represented an active make-believe that supposedly cast grave doubt upon the West's claim of enhancing freedom, dignity, and opportunity. With the triumph of the West in reality, and with the celebration of Marxism and the Third World shown more and more to have been truly delusional, the adversarial intellectual class appears to be retreating into ideologies and philosophies that deny the very concept of reality itself. One sees this in the growing strength in the humanities and social sciences of critical theories that view all representations of the world as mere text and fiction. When the world of fact can be twisted to support this or that side of delusion (as in astrology or parapsychology'), pathology tries to appropriate what it can of the empirical. When the world of fact manifestly vitiates the very foundations of pathological delusion, then it is the claim of facticity or reality per se that must be denied. This is what we now may expect: the world having spoken, the intellectual class, the left academic wing of it above all, may appropriate a little postcommunist chaos to show how merely relative a moral good the defeat of Stalin's heirs has been. If it does so, however, it will assail the notion of reality itself. In Orwell's 1984, it was the mark of realistic, totalitarian power to make its subjects say that all truth was not objective but political—"a social construction,'' as intellectuals would say now—and that, in the specific case, 2 + 2 = 5. By 2004, making students in the humanities and social sciences grant the equivalent of 2 + 2 = 5 will be the goal of adversarial culture. They will urge that all logical—and, one should add, inferential—inductive truths from experience are arbitrary, mere social constructions. The West Has Indeed Sur ived—So Far The ramifications of that effort will dominate the central debates of the humanities in the generation to come. Until there is a celebration and moral accounting of the historical reality of "The Triumph of the West," that "triumph" will be ephemeral indeed. Academic culture has replaced the simplistic model that all culture was functional, a model that indeed could not account for massive discontents or revolutionary change, let alone for moral categories, by the yet more astonishing and absurd model that virtually all culture is dysfunctional. Whole disciplines now teach that propositions are to be judged by their therapeutic value rather than by their inductive link to evidence until, in the final analysis, feeling good about saying something determines the truth-value of what is said. Understanding human weakness, however, the West has always believed that it is precisely when we want to believe something self-gratifying that we must erect barriers of experiment, rigor, and analysis against our self-indulgence and our propensity for self-serving error. The human ability to learn from experience and nature, so slighted in current humanistic theory, is not merely an object of cultural transmission, let alone of social control, but an evolutionary triumph of the species, indeed, a triumph on which our future ultimately depends. There is nothing more desperate than helplessness, and there is no more inveterate cause of helplessness than the inability to affect and mitigate the traumas of our lives. If the role of both acquired knowledge and the transmission and emendation of the means of acquiring knowledge is only a "Western" concern, then it is a Western concern upon which human fate depends. In the current academic climate of indoctrination, tendentiousness, and fantasy, the independence of critical intellect and the willingness to learn open-mindedly from experience of a reality independent of the human will are the greatest hopes of our civilization. Has Western civilization survived? That is, has a human relationship to the world based upon the assumption of a knowable reality-, reason, and a transcendent value of human dignity and responsibility survived? Has a will to know oneself and the world objectively survived? Has a recognition of human depravity and the need to limit the power of men over men survived? I do not think that free men and women will abandon that hard-won shelter from chaos, ignorance, parochial tribalism, irrationalism, and, ultimately, helplessness. Has Western civilization survived, its principle of reality justified and intact? Yes, indeed, though it requires constant defense. The demand for perfection is antinomian, illogical, and empirically absurd. The triumph of the West is flawed but real. While everyone else around you weeps, recall Alexander Ushakov and celebrate the fall of the Soviet threat as he celebrated the fall of Grenada. Then recall how everything depends on realism in our understanding, and rejoin the intellectual struggle.
  3. This. Get more experience and this shouldn't be a problem. Embedded clash can answer several arguments both effectively and simultaneously.
  4. Wait? Since when were new arguments in the 2nc bad? Do you know what would happen to neg win percentages if they weren't able to make new arguments in the 2nc? If answered, late developing debates usually go aff due to the speech order structure. When the 2nc is only making new arguments, it is *advantage* for you - it is time they could have spent developing round winners.
  5. No. How does the negative have "immense flexibility" to responed to the impact turn? There are impact turns to EVERY GOOD IMPACT, and a DA that is "chosen well" does not help - any decent aff team is usually prepared for most DAs to their aff - there is no way to predict which DA's they have not prepared. This argument assumes that you are facing an inept or incompetent team - the aff can get away with far fewer new answers per DA in the 1ar than is normally acceptable because the negative has no longer has the block to answer affirmative arguments. There is a reason why most at: blocks are relatively long and take a while to read in the block - reading these and competentely answering even a small number of aff arguments from the 1ar is nigh impossible - it is simply not possible to cover correctly. 1a's can read the first 3 points of 2ac blocks. Next. Anyone can read impact turns in the 1ar - any new block is up for grabs. It would be nigh impossible to give a 2nr on a hypothetical spending DA when the 1ar reads de-dev for 5 minutes in the 1ar. The strength of the block is in its direction - it can answer arguments that have already been read. Reading new I/L's and impacts in the block is like using a shotgun to kill a fly - it is impossible to predict what answers will be in the 1ar so the vast majority of evidence read will be wasted. EDIT: fixed formatting
  6. One major problem I see with this: Triana is the name of one of Columbus's ships. The aff uses the acronym DSCOVR in order to AVOID word PICS, not vice-versa.
  7. You probably want to check the Iowa City West wiki - they've read a space bmd advantage: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2011-2012+-+Iowa+City+West+%28IA%29+-+Jeffrey+Ding+%26+Liam+Hancock+-+Affirmative+-+SPS+DOD+Affirmative#St. Marks 1AC-Space-Based Missile Defense Advantage
  8. I'd say that the best big stick policy aff on this topic is SPS. Why? --Sweet advantages --Tons of add-on ground --Strong US key warrant --*MOST* CPs do not come close to solving the whole aff, and those that do are illegit and solve every aff (recommend the plan, etc.) There are *significant* solvency problems, but not any that slay the aff outright, especially given how aerospace type internal links only require the process of the building the plan. The best sneaky affs on the topic: JWT --Strong advantage ground --Being debated now (not many unique DA's) SSA --Strong advantage ground --Basically being done now (inneffectively) DSCOVR --Solar flares. And weaponization - just bad. Impact turn Impact turn Impact turn Impact turn lolz not feasible
  9. IMPACT TURN IT - Win some sort of solvency deficit on why the affirmatives type of system they use to cement space dominance is unfeasible and then win a militarization disad with a perception based link. Yes, teams are obviously going to be ready on the space mil good/bad debate, but you are ultimately on the right side if they read a space militarization advantage.
  10. I would seriously consider reading a lunar solar power aff instead of helium 3. The ev for lunar solar power is miles better, and you don't have to deal with issues like whether or not fusion actually works (it doesn't). The cards make similar claims, but you sidestep the best neg case args, so it might be best to reconsider.
  11. word. link turns are absolutely useless against the spending DA this year. Unless your specific case has some sic, and I mean AMAZING, means of saving a ton of money in the short term you are never going to win a link turn against a decent team.
  12. agree 100% with the bottom part of the post. However, Impact turns *can* be a good strategy against the spending DAs. If spending is a net benefit to a counterplan and you need to win some offense, de-dev CAN be the right way to go because some of the ev is just so sic. Obviously you don't want to impact turn the disad every time, because it is a definite uphill battle, but in certain occasions if the 1ar is ready to do some good de-dev action and allocate time correctly, it is certainly possible to execute this strategy correctly. Most De-dev authors write WAY better than economic collapse bad authors, and there is also a ton of dedev literature out there. Its obvious that no one should adopt this strategy every round, but it can be a good one in certain instances.
  13. Jschroeder - in all honesty no judge is EVER going to reject a spending DA on spending DA bad theory unless the other team straight up drops it. Really? Spending DA's are topic specific. Space exploration is extremely expensive, and ignoring that ignores a large topic area. Spiking out of that A. guts all neg groud B. Precludes effective neg strats I don't think you quite understand extra T - that is when the AFF team does something outside of the rez and claims an advantage. Running a disad against something that the plan does is NOT extra T. Spending DA's are part of the negative. By definition all ground outside of the resolution belongs to the negative. If you read this arg in round you will lose some serious judge cred. This argument isn't very good, but I'll deal with another problem with it first. If they read a K, and you happen to read this argument, you potentially have just lost the round. Any decent K team will argue that this means we as debaters will never be policy makers, thus the best option is to vote for the alt in order to achieve some real world change. Additionally, this arg doesn't apply at all to spending. Space exploration is super expensive, so spending disads are core negative ground. That is a subjective term, but heightened spending is a direct consequence of the plan, and should be debated. Uhhhh... ? Yes... this is true. However, YOU STILL HAVE TO WIN THAT SPENDING DA'S are illegit, which is almost IMPOSSIBLE in front of a decent team. The disad is core negative ground, its hardly abusive - all you have to do is cut a couple spending high now cards (I hear those are *very* hard to find right now), and win the line by line. It doesn't steal the aff, it doesn't do any of that. It is a direct cost of the plan. I highly recommend NOT reading spending DAs bad in round because it is not a winning argument at all.
  14. OK, Nokumura, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this pre-empt in the 1nc accomplishes nothing. Zilch. Zero. Zip. There is no substantive PICs good argument in the 1nc block, so it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to establish the theoretical legitimacy of the counterplan. Also, your "pre-empts" do nothing to pre-empt the perm at all. The perm is severance because... well... only functional competition is good. Any aff team with a degree of skill will, in the 2ac, have a counterinterpretation of "counterplans must be functionally AND textually competitive". Not only does that solves all of your offense in less than 5 seconds, but is also a much better interpretation. In front of a decent judge, your argument is just not going to hold up. Although you may win a few rounds, no decent team will ever lose to this block.
  15. Very interesting article. This is some of the more convincing writing for offshore balancing I have seen.
  16. Michigan definitely has not produced a Kuwait aff. It was included as an extra to the resolution arbitrarily simply because of the amount of troops located there rather than any particular advantage ground.
  17. any case that has to have a contention for topicality is not topical at all.
  18. Just post the existing ballots. It doesn't seem like masterdebater is doing anything.
  19. In round abuse is ALWAYS a voter and potential abuse is debatable. It is ALWAYS abusive for the aff to jump out of politics when they don't link to it because that is what the T violation is about. It gives that as a reason why specing the agent is bad, and when the aff does that exactly, it gives alot of ground to the argument that the neg couldn't have won the round from the beginning because the aff will just spike out of every link possible. On the other hand, potential abuse can be a voter too. Debate is too establish rules, it is not always what a team did in round, but what they justify in rounds to come. If one team wins that the other teams interp justifies bad things, they can win the round. The argument that rounds spill over is good, and when it is made, the round comes down to the justifications of the interpretation.
  • Create New...