Jump to content

CRusso

Member
  • Content Count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CRusso

  1. Order is 3 off, case. Should be fun. http://www.mediafire.com/?r6wzo6qq3926ywi
  2. http://www.mediafire.com/?tc8jsc54evg8g5o That's right - I work during the Superbowl! Tell me if it won't open in word - I made it in Open Office idk about the compatibility with Word.
  3. zomg do y0u h@ve w!peout>>?
  4. It solves piracy. Piracy=extinction/
  5. OK, so just one more question. What does the Korean Peninsula look like post plan?
  6. http://www.mediafire.com/?h2dkxv8oj54wy92 Sorry about the wait. Here's the 2n. Order is A-spec, vagueness, framework, and the K.
  7. No Banana that's forreal my strat each round.
  8. 1ac has 4 minutes of deontology framework. 1NC order is 1 off - heg good.
  9. Sorry for the dealy - busy day of sledding 1. Your evidence is all talking about how we've used Cold War methodology to justify colonizing South Korea. Aren't there other areas of the world that we have troops in that still use that same methodology? 2. Is there anyway your case is not topical? Otherwise I'll just run a-spec 3. Wouldn't the fact that the North recently shelled the South be an indicator that the threats of NOKO are real? 4. So is war inevitable post plan? 5. So the fact that 90% of NKs population lives in poverty, Kim Jong Il has been testing nuclear missles, he runs his country like a concentration camp, and doesn't allow any interaction with the outside world, those are all threat construction? 6. NK closes off their borders to everything. Isn't it possible there are other reasons negotiations won't work besides threat construction. 7. Your Cummings evidence talks about a global holocaust. Isn't this part of the same security rhetoric you criticize? 8. What is the role of the ballot? 9. Are you claiming to solve security rhetoric surrounding East Asia or the Cold War imperialism present there? 10. How does solving tensions with NOKO solve our imperialist presence there, will NOKO perceive the 1AC? Cool aff btw, I run one similar with PMCs/
  10. 1. OK on vagueness, you say specific solvency advocate solve our offense. How does this apply when you didn't even read a specific solvency advocate in the 1ac? 2. Your Bandow evidence indicates SOKO will be able to fend off an attack. So is war inevitable postplan and SOKO can just deter? 3. If NOKO wanted concessions and peace why were they shelling areas of SOKO one month ago, killing some SOKO troops? 4. On framework, is the role of the ballot to What you said in cross-x - to take into account all of the terrible things in this area and look at it as an individual and solve for individuals in the area not the world or what you said in your 2ac - to simulate the policy outcome of the plan. Engaging the state and taking an active pragmatic approach is the only way to forge political possibilities in society, this is also a reason the alt would fail because they try to philosophize political relevance. 5. How do your Larson and Gow cards apply in this debate? 6. Explain your Olson evidence on Bataille 7. Explain your Nancy evidence 8. On patriarchy, if we prove the plan causes war in any way, does this mean that patriarchy will still be inevitable?
  11. Ok cool. And It's a kritik of the 1ac. Put short I guess it could be summed up as - the 1ac tries to change and reform the violence of the state, but the state uses this process of appeasement to conduct further atrocities in other areas. Instead of turning to the state to solve our problems, Bataille says that we should practically reject(sacrifice) the state power in form of a better communication with the self, which is the ecstatic communication you're talking about.
  12. Idk where you're going with this communication stuff. Our Hutnyk evidence specifically talks about how we should reject the appeasement of the 1ac. Btw wc is at 3700 unhighlighted. If you want I can highlight it down, but I can just give you extra time in the 2ac. It'll just be a bitch to highlight down.
  13. It should be fine. If you want me to go down and highlight it that's cool.
  14. OK sweet. Here's the 1NC. http://www.mediafire.com/?u911bysac4isvrp GL HF
  15. What victims? I did a word search on that entire contention and I can't even find the word Korea
  16. So if patriarchy is inevitable why vote aff? What is the role of the ballot?
  17. I'm cool with all the judges. Here's cross-x. 1. How does your Korea Times Card apply in the rest of the debate? 2. What is your plan removing? 3. What is the warrant in your KCNA evidence for reunification? 4. How is this reunification going to take place? 5. Your Easley 07 evidence is completely indicative of the South Koreans wanted to be united. How is the North going to respond to this "reunification"? 6. My friends parents are divorced. Does that mean we're all going to die? 7. Maybe I'm not catching this.... What's the internal link to patriarchy? 8. People in my hometown get raped all the time. How does the plan solve for instances such as this? 9. Back on reunification - There was an absence of U.S. presence on the Korean peninsula when the secession first occurred. Doesn't this indicate that there are other reasons the Koreas don't want to be united?
  18. Was exactly what I said.
  19. Anybody have one of these? I have lots to trade, pm me.
  20. I'm pretty sure it could apply to XO the same though. Normal means is the three branches pass it, I could be mistaken though.
  21. In general this could be literally anything. If they run a politics da I could just say normal means is it goes through congress and avoids political cap loss. XO usually means that Obama proposes it, congress votes on it, and the courts approve it, so the plan is cp is not mutually exclusive.
×
×
  • Create New...