Jump to content

czechmatedebate

Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About czechmatedebate

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/07/1995

Profile Information

  • Name
    Cole Feldman
  • School
    St. James Academy
  • Location
    Shawnee, KS
  1. Playing negative's advocate: I would establish the point at the top of my case that any loss of life is the worst possible thing to happen and the primary value in the round will be preservation of life. Hence, killing is unpopular. No matter how terrible the person, he/she is still human. Killing humans is bad.
  2. I have been presented with the wonderful opportunity to attend MSDI, but am very reluctant to take 2 valuable weeks off of work and away from home. Is MSDI gonna give me the skills and evidence I need to have a superb policy season, and make the sacrifice worthwhile?
  3. Cole,

    Just as a heads up--I replied to your Catholics LD query.

    If you have other questions or need clarification--I would be glad to help.

    Take care,

    Nathan

  4. 1) I would agree that the V/C is pretty unnecessary for this resolution because it's pretty much just a truth statement. I would prefer that the aff just uphold his/her the burden to prove and the neg uphold his/her burden to disprove. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna try and just set up a burden of proof framework and forget the V/C. But, then again, I'm afraid some n00b is gonna pull out the LD Handbook and point out to the judge that I need a V/C and he/she is gonna vote on it without realizing the purpose of the framework I'm trying to set up. 2) What's the difference between V/C and standards? In Kansas it's always just been V/C, although I've heard standards used hear and there. 3) What if I kept C1 to impose the burden of proof on the aff, dropped C2, but then kept C3 to establish some kind of impact or value?
  5. 1. NO MORAL OBLIGATION EXISTS IN THIS SCENARIO A. THE UNITED STATES IS A COUNTRY, THEREFORE INCAPABLE OF POSSESSING A MORAL OBLIGATION B. THE U.S. HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROMOTE “JUST†GOVERNANCE C. THE U.S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHERS 2. THE U.S. IS INCAPABLE OF PROMOTING JUST GOVERNANCE, THEREFORE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE A. U.S. LACKS RESOURCES TO INTERVENE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY B. FOR EMPIRICAL PROOF, LOOK TO IRAQ 3. ALL ATTEMPTS TO PROMOTE “JUST GOVERNANCE†ARE GROUNDED IN IMPERIALISM, AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS A. INTERVENTION TO PROMOTE GOVERNANCE IN “DEVELOPING†NATIONS IS THE EPITEMY OF IMPERIALISM B. IMPERIALISM DESTROYS JUST GOVERNANCE AND RESULTS IN THE DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED STATES, THUS TOTALLY TURNING THE CASE I've got my case structure as you can see above, but I'm having trouble finding a V/C pair that ties it all together. I would appreciate any suggestions on a V/C. I would also welcome any praise or criticism on the case structure. Thanks
  6. The aff would develop anything necessary for the SPARTAN program (really big stuff included). This would be reasonably topical because, seeing as the program is specifically directed towards space militarization, the plan would be intrinsically linked with space development.
  7. Could I use my VC if I win that moral obligations exist, and elaborate in my contentions? For example: C1) We have a moral obligation to help others C2) We have a moral obligation to promote justice C3) We have a moral obligation [insert anything else that would come along with just governance]
  8. A far as I can tell, the FW that you wanna set up is all about answering the question of a moral obligation in the specific instance introduce by this rez. So, within this FW both sides will attempt to convince the judge of an answer to the question: "Does the United States have a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations?" Aff will say YES and Neg will say NO. Thus, providing for an extremely simple, yet morality-intensive debate. But, within this FW it is extremely difficult to access a big Value because the only arguments are for the existence or non-existence of a moral obligation. Therefore, the only Value you can access is that of Morality with a Criterion of Fulfilling Moral Obligations.
  9. Love this framework, but does it provide a big enough foundation for your Value, which would almost have to be Morality.
  10. Yeah, this would def not be my go to aff. But, I do wanna run something fun this year cuz i think that's what this rez is all about.
  11. I'm preparing for D.C. and am trying to decide on a Value for Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations." I've been leaning towards Morality or Justice, as they are both obviously implicit in the resolution and can both support a pretty good case. But, as I have thought about this, I have realized that my case can legitimately reach both of them. So... Can I have two values (Morality AND Justice)?
  12. Because all the judges out there are just dying to vote on Inherency
  13. In the fictional world of Halo, The SPARTAN-II project was secretly commissioned to create an elite corps of supersoldiers; these soldiers became the best weapon against the alien Covenant when war broke out. The Spartans become heroes and veritable legends; in order to maintain public confidence that the war is going well. While playing as Master Chief (one of the last of the SPARTAN-II supersoldiers still in active service), I thought to myself: Wouldn't it be legit to actually have a couple of these beasts in our U.S. Military Force. Thus, I propose the following plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere by developing the SPARTAN project. The SPARTAN project will produce supersoldiers capable of defending planet Earth from any Extra Terrestrial attacks. As far as advantages go, I'm thinking somthing along the lines of Readiness or Defense against Alien Attack. Any support or criticism is welcome.
  14. Moon is a 2009 British science fiction drama filmabout a man who experiences a personal crisis as he nears the end of a three-year solitary stint mining helium-3 on the far side of the Earth's moon. Lunar Industries employee Sam Bell is contracted to work for three years at the largely automated "Sarang" lunar base, with only an artificial intelligence assistant named GERTY for company. His job is to oversee the automated harvesters which extract helium-3 from the lunar regolith. He periodically sends full canisters to Earth, where the helium-3 is used to generate much-needed clean fusion energy. This was a pretty sick movie, and it incorporates a lot of the ideas you're wanting to have in this aff. So, I would def recommend watching it or even just skimming over the summary on Wikipedia to get those creative juices flowing.
  15. 1) I believe countries have are actors just the same as governments are, considering they are both comprised of people, and people are the most fundamental moral actors. 2) Any criticisms linked to "developing" would most likely be extremely picky and annoying. "Developing" is probably necessary to clarify that these countries actually need some sort of help. 3) Good point on the fact that this rez includes morality and justice. I totally disregarded "just" because it seemed to be just thrown on the end. A good contention may be something like we have the "moral obligation" to promote justice, therefore we have the "moral obligation" to promote "just governance." 4) Also, agree on the last point about the vagueness of "just governance."
×
×
  • Create New...