Jump to content

Lt. Dan

Member
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lt. Dan

  1. No, you can't "reasonably" meet an interpretation, you either meet or you don't meet. Most people consider reasonability to be that if the aff's counter interp is reasonably fair and educational, T shouldn't be an issue. To win T with a reasonability f/w, the neg has to prove that debate is functionally impossible with the aff's counter interp. If they don't have a counter interp, they pretty much have to win either a we meet, or no case meets...
  2. I'm willing to bet the "XO bypasses Congress" cards are pretty good...
  3. That's not what he's saying. Even if there is no violation, the K still has a link.
  4. No, the XO cp is based around this concept. Shree, spend 5 minutes and cut your own ev if you're not satisfied with a camp file.
  5. Lt. Dan

    Dropped Arguments

    It's really 34 seconds per page, not 3.4 seconds.
  6. Lt. Dan

    Heg

    Ok... the neg can cp out of an extra topical advantage. EASY WIN!!!12!1! Assuming you at least have some 2ac add ons that talk about why your actual plan mechanism is good, this cp just gets the neg back to where they started, by solving unfair advantages... No, the perm would solve any "better link" to the advantage. Yeah... you cp out of a heg advantage, and you have a "shitty" econ disad to weigh against all the other shit normal plans solve for... Yeah, that's why they're going to lose on T every round - trust me. I'm going to explain this one more time - I doubt I'll find it worth my time to repeat this explanation again. If you still don’t agree with me, ask around. The rez is verbatim "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services to persons living in poverty in the United States". The aff can claim advantages from a plan that takes a resolution action. The action of "cutting military spending" MAY BE a real world part of what giving social services ENTAILS, but it makes you extra topical if you MANDATE or try to fiat something that isn't part of the resolution. You can claim your shitty trade off advantage, but you have to prove that normal means is for Congress to cut military spending... otherwise, you can't claim that ground. And to the OP – this convo probably explains why even claiming trade off advantages without being extra topical isn’t strategic. The neg can cp out of the advantage with a zero risk of a solvency deficit by just cutting the budget…
  7. The answer to this is 99% of the other literature says people are people.
  8. Lt. Dan

    Heg

    That cp wouldn't be an easy neg ballot, it would just get the neg back to where they started - squo (econ disad) vs the actual resolution (stuff about giving social services to people in poverty). Specifying funding is unstrategic because it makes funding pics competitive (like when the neg does the plan except trades off with a different budget). Specifying funding makes them extra topical because they mandate an action other than the resolution. Even if in the real world trade offs occur, the resolution doesn't specify a particular budget that we should trade off with - that means that the aff has to defend normal means, not define normal means in their plan text.
  9. dude... c'mon now, let's get real... this aff doesn't solve shit
  10. Yeah, you should number the 1nc case arguments and 2ac frontlines to off case arguments. From then on, you can describe arguments as "the 1nc #3", or "the 2ac #2". Line by line is just when you answer each argument down the flow in the same order as the other team made the argument.
  11. Lt. Dan

    Heg

    Specifying where your funding comes from makes you extra topical. The only way to make this work is if your plan just says "funding comes from normal means", but you argue that normal means for social service funding is to trade off with military funding.
  12. There's a pretty famous card by Joseph Nye that makes that claim. It used to be in the disad impact thread, but The Penguin deleted it - you should pm him. EDIT: here's a card that quotes Nye Zwiebel, Army War College, 2006 (Michael, Military Review, Nov/Dec Ebsco-UT TM) When one thinks of sovereign state power, the first thought is likely that of military capabilities. But the sovereign state has many instruments of power available to it, including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DW) instruments. In Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Joseph Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and a recognized expert on international affairs and the effects of soft power, provides some useful observations on power and its relationship to the sovereign state. Power, Nye says, is “the ability to influence the behavior of others to getthe outcomes YOU want.” Influence can be accomplished through forceful means, or hard power, such as military action or economic restrictions. Nye then describes an alternate source of power: soft power. He explains that soft power uses attraction to “get the outcomes YOU want without the tangible threats or pavoffs.”3 According to Nye, a state derives its soft power from three sources: culture, political values, and foreign politics. The strength of the state’s soft power depends on the attraction or repulsion its culture, political values, and foreign policy generate inthe citizens of the targeted country. To make soft power work effectively, a state must carefully select the methods that will attract others to its interests. Soft power, it must be said, is not anexclusive replacement for hard power: rather, it can strengthen applications of hard power, and it may be less expensive. Soft power can be directed at either an opposing state or at its individual citizens. Public diplomacy is one form of soft power employed by the United States. The Nation used it during the cold war to communicate American values to the populations of Communist countries (and to neutral countries and allied populations as well).
  13. Well, it sure beats Heidegger...
  14. There's no need to "ban" mediafire, but I think that it should be strongly disencouraged, barring extenuating circumstances.
  15. QFA Mediafire links stop working after a while, and a lot of schools block them. Also, it's just a hassel. I don't see why people do this.
  16. Legalize gay marriage for homosexuals living in poverty
  17. Can you be more specific than the "Southeast Asia topic"? I mean, the region's nice, but it would be easier to have a discussion here if you told us the rest of the resolution.
  18. Err.. I guess if it's not severance, "perm do both" is effectively the same as just the plan. I'm not sure why this is necessarily a "horrible idea" - remember, most people think of perms as tests of competition, not advocacies.
  19. If you think that debate research and innovation of new arguments are bad and simply meant to "surprise opponents", then why not just require all PFers to defend the exact same plan and advantages, and force all the negs to make the same case arguments every round? The topic committee (or whoever picks the topic) could do all of the research, cut how ever many cards they thought necessary, and all new arguments and evidence would be banned.
×
×
  • Create New...