RomaSeeEcs

So in extemp we talked about how Facebook got blocked in either Egypt or Tunisia or one of those and that Mark Zuckerberg basically pulled a British-East-India-Trading-Company and bypassed the country's government. What do you guys think about this?

Wow, thank you to everyone who replied and gave me such good comments. So for sure, I'm going to update my inherency. I'll definitely remodel the China one. As for the first advantage, I seem to not understand the difference between offshore balancing and removing troops?? I'm going to take everyone' s comments and edit my case, then post it again in case anyone wants to check it out. Any ideas for a fourth contention?

Wow, thanks to all of you! I feel like I've got a better understand now 100%! thanks guys!

I'm a UIL debater in South Texas, and my record is 9-4; I've ran against CPs, DAs, and Ts, but I've never gone against a K. Can someone please explain to me the theory of a critique and how it wins the debate? and an example of how a critique works in this year's topic?

Does anyone wanna take a look at the case I put together and tell me what they think?? http://www.mediafire.com/?784eg4vzu1ut2ep

This. lol

Ok thanks, and no i'm not a troll lol it's just my first year in debate :/ and I'm usually a UIL debater, but i stumbled upon this forum and thought it would help. Thanks to everyone who posted So would everyone agree this is a good plan text? My contentions are Alliance Burden Sharing, Environment (extinction/pollution), China Military Modernization, and Exhausted Troops

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term PIC; what does it mean?

I've read a few cases that say instead of Isn't using "will" defying the resolution, because the Resolution says "should reduce?" What do you guys think about cases that say "should" instead? The resolved I'm using for a meet I have this Saturday is The United States federal government should reduce its military presence in Japan. I don't know if I should add We'll clarify. as well.

Thanks alot; this really helped me understand. So you suggest I don't specify as to where the troops would go to, etc? Also, do you have any suggestions as to what I should run? I mean what do you think is the best plan text and case to run?

Can you elaborate on what you mean? Is OSB not topical because the resolved suggests removing from Japan? I mean, Guam is a couple thousand miles away.

Thanks, I like the suggestion. Wouldn't a plan text just saying be abusive in the sense that I don't specify what I'm removing? The neg can run a 50-100% T, a 80,000 troop T, or a military presence=nuclear weapons T.

Thanks for the explanation. Do you mean the "offshore balancing" plan text or the "remove NAF Atsugi" plan text?

Thank you both this really helped

What exactly does that mean? I'm trying to re-do my original Japan aff case which suggests moving NAF Atsugi from Japan to the US. I'm checking out the Gonzaga Japan Aff case, and the plan text is Can someone elaborate on the idea and the definition of "offshore balancing?"