Jump to content

Tehnikhil

Member
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Tehnikhil

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/28/1995
  1. Let's be real here guys, Emory IW's got this in the bag
  2. idk man, i think St. Mark's is going to have some trouble beating pace at the toc
  3. What did you find to be a big problem with the military topic this year?
  4. You should read it vs 2 girls and a girl judge. I actually heard for the sandwich card, some guy had his girl parter read that and then pull a sandwich out of her backpack and give it to him.
  5. This year, a lot of consult net benefits aren't artificial. For example, with consult NATO, there are authors who say that withdrawal without giving binding consultation to NATO first will hurt the alliance and with Japan, there is lack of consultation before withdrawal will cause Japan prolif. What I am wondering though is, with things like NATO, how does one win that the net benefit isn't empirically denied? Obama just shifted/removed troops from Iraq, and NATO hasn't collapsed. I doubt the US has always consulted NATO in the past, and I am pretty sure they have never given them prior binding consultation before. With things like Japan, this may be less of an issue since they probably don't care about stuff like Afghanistan and Iraq as long as it doesn't affect them, but with stuff like NATO and the UN where they may care about the entire world, how is it possible to win that it is still unique?
  6. Could someone explain to me how the cap bad alt of rejecting the aff as a means of rejecting cap works? if they argue a spillover, that seems like it would be empirically denied because at least using the poverty topic, I am sure lots of social service Programs have been rejected by congress in the past but we still have cap. The alt seems like it still makes the neg impacts inevitable if there is no slope because just doing something like spiritually rejecting cap in a room doesn't seem to change that if try to defend a world where the aff is rejected, it won't do anything that hasn't already been empirically denied in it's solvency.
  7. I am wondering, though, isn't this ridiculous as an RVI? I mean, it seems like the same thing as "vote aff--we're topical". I mean, if a team uses that arg saying that debate should be hard and condo does that, doesn't that simply justify using condo, but not automatically voting for neg?
  8. What is the average steal funding CP text? With some, it seems that one could get away with doing the perm without textually severing. If there was a CP of "steal the funding from <aff mandate> and use that money to fund NASA", then why couldn't the aff say "perm: do the <aff mandate> and fund NASA". The words fund NASA are in the CP text. Or is it that the neg woudl be defending functional competetion and not textual?
  9. Disads: Deterrence Relations Maybe foreign politics Counterplans: Condit--*is shot*
  10. The movie/book example can be good for explaining perms too. The aff can just ask why they can't do both, and therefore, there are twice as many stories and funny things. And then go on about how it still could link to a disad of, I dunno, hurt vision, while the book by iteslf doesn't do that and hurt vision matters more than twice as many of the funny and good stories?
  11. Woudl you give some of the evidence in that file to teh guys who go to your workshop?
  12. Tehnikhil

    Spreading

    Also, does anyone have any suggestions for understanding spreading? Although I was able to understand most spreading by other novices this year, when I listened to the varsity guys on my squad debate, I couldn't understand them nor their opponents when they talked during the speeches. Is there any way to train my ear to understand fast spreading?
×
×
  • Create New...