Jump to content

CRusso

Member
  • Content Count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CRusso

  1. Also how are we supposed to maintain heg in a world where we dedevelop? And is the alt to the K a question of ontology? Or what exactly does it do?
  2. Cross-X 1. What ground do you lose from me saying including but not limited to? 2. What is sisyphus? 3. Is violence inevitable in the world of the alt? 4. How does imagining sisyphus solve the aff? 5. Wouldn't we be dead a long time ago if Camus's philosophy was endorsed? 6. Why would Obama be a good actor to implement a military system? 7. How are XOs good for debate if none of your evidence even talks about the aff? 8. How can the planks be solved on the 2nd cp if we don't have stable networking abilities> 9. What does the cp do to get China on board who produces more emissions than we do? 10. Status of CPs k? 11. Why is the billions we spend on Afghanistan not perceived by congress but my aff is?
  3. Solvency What is a "network node?" It's the hardware that would be deployed on satellites to implement DTN. The 50th space wing of the US Air Force operates the GPS sat(s) your internal link card (the 3rd one) talks about, but the DOD is only increasing DTN on "its" satellites according to your plan text, yes? It's all US satellites. I dont account for private sector. Why is space key? Do any of your cards suggest that it is? The first SSI 10 card says ground stations are insecure now, and NSTAC says placing nodes directly on our satellites is the most effective way to solve that. Economy Your SSI card isolates THE cause of vulnerability in satellites to be single central command stations, but since you don't create more and thus form more connecting beams, would they think you solve? When satellites send information to each other, it's sent to a command station which is vulnerable. DTN's connection beams allow satellites to send information without the ground station, so the security threat is removed. Your Harris and Burrows card says Iran will form "security arrangements with external powers" -- what current nuclear state will give them access considering the NPT? Countries won't just give nuclear bombs to another country, but they can be protected by major powers while developing their weapons, such as North Korea and CHina. Why does the economy *check* war; what are the "economic outlets" the "angry," "disenfranchised," and "self-radicalized" would use in other instances which would apparently completely quell their dissatisfaction? A lot of the Middle East's economy is tied with our. Unemployment is a major factor in terrorist recruiting, and a strong economy means more people will have jobs than are excluded from society. Do the economic status of the US and our hegemony interact at all? Yes. Sea-basing How does it cause diplomacy? Rapid deployment features allows us to send units to help with relief missions for natural disasters or maintain peace presence, both which would give us better soft power in those countries. Heg High/low now? High but ineffective. What the the "geographic hotspots" the tag of Barno speaks of? East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, anywhere conflict emerges seabasing can decrease escalation. Warming Hague says the world looks to the US for leadership on global issues like the environment… why? "because it has the economic clout and diplomatic leverage to shift the global debate" This is your only extinction scenario, correct?- I'll contend the war and terrorism from Kagan and Harris and Burrows will cause inevitably cause extinction. If you want to argue it won't that's cool. Once again sorry about the delay. End of high schools badass
  4. Yo sorry I havent been on in a few days. School just finished so there's been a lot going on. 2600 wc is fine. I'll have cross-x up in about an hour.
  5. Uhhhh could you cut down that 1AR? It's at 2800 words which is longer than a constructive...
  6. Does conditionality mean that you can concede a flow that has nothing but offense run against it? It means I can concede an advocacy if it has offense on it or not. There's nothing in this round that says the neg can't run multiple worlds. If I kick the CP or K, you can't get offense because the squo isn't doing the cp. How is my delay permutation functionally different from "perm do both", and how is it intrinsic It allows you to spike out of my net benefits by changing the timeframe of the aff, avoiding my uniqueness arguments. As a question of sequencing, does ontology come before utilitarian cost-benefit-analysis? Or is ontology an impact that is weighed alongside others? It comes before but that argument wasn't in the 2AC.
  7. Sorry for the wait. Here's the block. http://www.mediafire.com/?sgsfabtztahysuq Order is Spending, RPS CP, Burke, Heg, warming, and China.
  8. OK 2NC should be up tomorrow. I'm just going to post the block in one speech.
  9. RPS 1. What's the warrant to why mitigation strategies fail without NASA? 2. How does mandating corporations use renewable energy resources link to spending? 3. Can you give me a specific outline of how the USfg will solve your Werz evidence post-aff? Burke 1. Isn't trying to control the outcome of what happens to the refugee through policy action an example of ontological certainty? 2. How do you solve those irrational forms of conflict? 3. Can you explain how your second Dillon 98 evidence explains the argument you make on the perm? 4. Are my performative contradictions a reason to vote aff? 5. How does going condo not solve all your Burke contradiction arguments?
  10. Aight cool. Here's the 1NC. http://www.mediafire.com/?j0949bj7ky4uxjn Btw I'm doing the same thing and using this debate to avoid IB studying lol
  11. Aight here's cross-x. 1. What kind of technology is EOS? 2. What evidence do you read that Obama will use satellite data to gather information? 3. What's the timeframe for solvency on warming? 4. Your Werz evidence says Bengladesh has already experienced several disastrous floods. Why haven't we seen the impact? 5. What has India done to help us in Afghanistan, pressure Iran, or deter North Korea? 6. So is your water wars argument that Pakistan is going to run out of water and nuke India? What would that accomplish? 7. How does heg deescalate conflict? 8. How are we going to continue to deter China if they're economies rapidly getting to the rate of overtaking ours? 9. How do you solve your Thompson evidence? 10. Why is China attacking us? 11. Is heg the only way to deter those rising powers? 12. How are you going to pay for the plan and how much will it cost?
  12. I'm looking to go neg against any aff. PM me if you're down.
  13. You're good. Here's the 2NR http://www.mediafire.com/?0kz799gqsxkob2d Order is an Cap with an overview, the perm, impacts, alt, and natives. Good round Warturtle.
  14. The Bellia evidence was tricky, and had he not been making the cooperation args you probably would've won. But the Bellia evidence is talking mostly about how xos allow the president asserts leadership over congress while the arguments hes making are about cooperation with congress which is the basis for solvency.
  15. Here's my ballot. PS sorry for double post. I voted aff. What the debate came down to for me was the branch balancing argument. The Belia evidence says silence is key to presidential powers, but it doesn't actually say anything about balancing between powers, and it's pretty damning when the Zelizer evidence says in the underline part cooperation solves best. The Paulsen evidence doesn't directly say cooperation occurs from the perm, but it does say it allows for effective checks and balances, which I buy is a bigger internal link to solvency than Belia. There are a lot of new arguments in the 1AR, but the Zelzer/Paulsen stems from the Anderson evidence in the 2AC. Overall I think even if the CP solves in the short term, coop from the aff solves better and I grant him access to Paulsen. I also buy the aff's argument the juridical overlap the neg claims happens from the perm is better for long term solvency. The last thing on this was the intrinsicness debate, there isn't a voter on it throughout the round, so I never consider it abusive. There isn't a reason textual competition is bad in the 2NR, and the neg also concedes it's part of normal means, therefor not really a reason to reject the aff or the arg. One thing that needed to be done a lot more was the impact calculus. There was virtually none in either of the final rebuttals, which made it very hard and muddled to evaluate the round. Neg does this in the 2NC, but then you just say extend it in the 2NR. That's a time when you need to be doing that analysis, because that's where most judges vote. Aff, you need to be weighing the case against the nb. Things I noticed Politics Neg you should definitely be reading more specific links to the aff - he's right there isn't any turnover between aviation security to port security. One thing you could also be doing is reading politics as a NB to XO. Aff you should probably be spending more time on this in this but I think the no link and C/A his impact defense do a pretty good job of taking it out. Kicking it was fine. XO On this new arguments debate, while I believe the 1AR does make them, the neg should spend more time articulating which ones were specific that would make it easier for me to work for you. I think both teams spend way to much time on this, especially when its not a voter. A simple protect my speech argument would be fine. The neg wins the CP solves the aff, but if the aff wins the perm solves and allows for balancing so the case and CP are solved fine. Aff presumption was almost an influence at this point, when the CP and the aff both solved. The aff does a lot better analysis than the neg in the 2AR, but the I agree with the neg that there isn't really an impact articulated in Moe of why appropriations are bad. At that point, the president can reallocate funds and do the aff even in a state of emergency. However, with the perm gaining access to this it doesn't really matter. On the nb, the aff is right the neg concedes it, but I'm not presented with a single reason of why the net benefit is important in the 2NR. Had you done more impact calc, Id be a lot less inclined to buy the perm. Also I didn't vote on T. If the RVI was in the 2AC maybe but it isn't until the 1AR so I don't flow it. Also since he concedes your interpretation is good none of your arguments really matter. Overall decent round. Aff I'd put more into your 2AC XO block. You do a good job arguing the perm, but you want more options like XO bad theory, or offense on why prez powers are bad. You do this in the 1AR with the SOP and tyranny, but that impact needs to be in the 2AC. I grant you the juridical overlap arg because of your Anderson evidence, but there isn't an offensive reason why unilateral XOs are bad in the 2AC. Neg you need to be a lot cleaner and do more in round analysis. You say a lot of things like, gain this impact, so I win the round, but dont give a reason why. This made it hard for me to vote on you, and overall I bought the 2ARs arg that the perm solved XO powers best, so he gains access to the NB and the case. If you have any questions just ask me.
  16. Here's my ballot. I voted aff. What the debate came down to for me was the branch balancing argument. The Belia evidence says silence is key to presidential powers, but it doesn't actually say anything about balancing between powers, and it's pretty damning when the Zelizer evidence says in the underline part cooperation solves best. The Paulsen evidence doesn't directly say cooperation occurs from the perm, but it does say it allows for effective checks and balances, which I buy is a bigger internal link to solvency than Belia. There are a lot of new arguments in the 1AR, but the Zelzer/Paulsen stems from the Anderson evidence in the 2AC. Overall I think even if the CP solves in the short term, coop from the aff solves better and I grant him access to Paulsen. I also buy the aff's argument the juridical overlap the neg claims happens from the perm is better for long term solvency. The last thing on this was the intrinsicness debate, there isn't a voter on it throughout the round, so I never consider it abusive. There isn't a reason textual competition is bad in the 2NR, and the neg also concedes it's part of normal means, therefor not really a reason to reject the aff or the arg. One thing that needed to be done a lot more was the impact calculus. There was virtually none in either of the final rebuttals, which made it very hard and muddled to evaluate the round. Neg does this in the 2NC, but then you just say extend it in the 2NR. That's a time when you need to be doing that analysis, because that's where most judges vote. Aff, you need to be weighing the case against the nb. Things I noticed Politics Neg you should definitely be reading more specific links to the aff - he's right there isn't any turnover between aviation security to port security. One thing you could also be doing is reading politics as a NB to XO. Aff you should probably be spending more time on this in this but I think the no link and C/A his impact defense do a pretty good job of taking it out. Kicking it was fine. XO On this new arguments debate, while I believe the 1AR does make them, the neg should spend more time articulating which ones were specific that would make it easier for me to work for you. I think both teams spend way to much time on this, especially when its not a voter. A simple protect my speech argument would be fine. The neg wins the CP solves the aff, but if the aff wins the perm solves and allows for balancing so the case and CP are solved fine. Aff presumption was almost an influence at this point, when the CP and the aff both solved. The aff does a lot better analysis than the neg in the 2AR, but the I agree with the neg that there isn't really an impact articulated in Moe of why appropriations are bad. At that point, the president can reallocate funds and do the aff even in a state of emergency. However, with the perm gaining access to this it doesn't really matter. On the nb, the aff is right the neg concedes it, but I'm not presented with a single reason of why the net benefit is important in the 2NR. Had you done more impact calc, Id be a lot less inclined to buy the perm. Also I didn't vote on T. If the RVI was in the 2AC maybe but it isn't until the 1AR so I don't flow it. Also since he concedes your interpretation is good none of your arguments really matter. Overall decent round. Aff I'd put more into your 2AC XO block. You do a good job arguing the perm, but you want more options like XO bad theory, or offense on why prez powers are bad. You do this in the 1AR with the SOP and tyranny, but that impact needs to be in the 2AC. I grant you the juridical overlap arg because of your Anderson evidence, but there isn't an offensive reason why unilateral XOs are bad in the 2AC. Neg you need to be a lot cleaner and do more in round analysis. You say a lot of things like, gain this impact, so I win the round, but dont give a reason why. This made it hard for me to vote on you, and overall I bought the 2ARs arg that the perm solved XO powers best, so he gains access to the NB and the case. If you have any questions just ask me.
  17. Aight here's the 2NR. http://www.mediafire.com/?1fe0sqcup4t90zq Good round. Order is Zizek.
  18. I'm not sure if it's ethical to ask for this but does anybody have a Foreign Affairs login info? There's lots of interesting articles and potentially good evidence on there but almost everything is for members only. If you can/want to help just send me a PM.
  19. Sorry I've been swamped with homework this week. I'll try and get it up tomorrow during school.
  20. Sorry about the delay. Here's the 2AC. http://www.mediafire.com/?u2p9u9g4dmdax9u
×
×
  • Create New...