Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Good

About teleportmassive

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    24% interest credit cards
  1. This is the opposite of topical - it REMOVES T/I (if you're even going to call it that, it's probably water infrastructure)
  2. So many responses - thanks! I'm still wondering if there's a good approach (besides mitigation of the extinction claim) to what others have been talking about, the fact that nuclear war also wipes out species.
  3. There was a card around here at one point that claimed a moral obligation to prevent BioD collapse - does anyone know the one I'm talking about? What about other impact calc type cards/analysis re: biod? Thanks!
  4. It seems like you guys have a lot of ballots and some pretty detailed, valuable advice so far, so if you don't mind, I'm going to bow out of doing an independent evaluation. It would be redundant, and I'm also quite busy. Additionally, I feel uncomfortable judging after reading all the other ballots (obviously this is not the way it's supposed to go for a reason). Sorry!
  5. Thanks for messaging me - I can probably get to this by tomorrow night.
  6. Third judge? Saw you had two. My prefs are posted somewhere around here, but everything happening so far is fine and I am pretty legit
  7. There are about 4.5 characters per English word (probably more given debate jargon). You've accidentally set the limit at 533 words for constructives and 333 for rebuttals...
  8. I don't have any cross-x questions (unless anything isn't condo, in which case you should say so), but working on the 2AC has become a bit chaotic. I'll try to finish as soon as possible. Rawrcat looks like a good judge.
  9. Yeah, there's no way to make this into a "reject the team" issue, the punishment wouldn't fit the crime. Conditionality also answers pretty much any objections. Despite not having the "shock value" of the new theory you propose, condo bad is still going to be an easier one to win. If you want obscure theory, go with something like "no neg fiat," lol. Then again, I have confidence in you to win the "substance" of rounds
  10. Oh sorry about that -- it wasn't one off because you read T and stuff as well; but if you don't want me to judge because of this it's okay.
  11. You will get better speaker points by being nice to each other, debaters (Oops, I thought IgnorantlyRight's post came from someone actually in the round).
  12. I can judge this (and that would be instead of also debating you, Vikram; I'm kinda busy). TOPICALITY: I have no dispositions on reasonability versus competing interpretations, or otherwise erring aff or neg on this issue. I think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to go for and that affirmative teams underestimate it -- as long as you cover your shit in the block and spend at least 4 minutes and about 10 seconds on it in the 2NR, you're a contender. KRTIKS: It's more acceptable to run multiple condo Ks than CPs, for the simple reason that a strong link usually means the perm fails, and that they don't use/abuse fiat. I like Ks and don't fundamentally disbelieve the claim that debate should only be about policies options or the status quo. I would much prefer the aff beat the K straight-up rather than running framework; unless it is completely dropped I will not vote for it. Sometimes debaters read obscure Ks hoping that the other team will just not have answers -- I think this is bad for education and that less clash and depth in the round will result in lower speaks for everyone. Treat me like I don't know anything -- that's probably not far from the truth. It need a comprehensive overview at the top of any K as opposed to just card extensions -- I want to have a clear link and impact story by the end of the round, same as I would with a disad. I don't tend to like 1 off K debates or very generic link Ks (think Focault, cap, and probably race, especially for teams which only run race). If you're a one-trick pony, for both of our sakes, just don't pref me. OTHER: I value analytical arguments as equal to carded ones until provided a reason to like one or the other more (this works two ways -- if you say analytics are better than evidence and they drop this, I will default to your framing). "Prefer our Harvard PhD to the 'blippy' analytics of a high schooler" isn't very persuasive, though, you must prove some inherent worth to your old dude and impact his knowledge in terms of depth of study and time spent doing it. In general, I value to the logic of whatever you are saying most highly, regardless of where it comes from. I care a lot that I can draw a clear line through the debate for your arguments -- if I don't have it on my flow for the 1AR, you don't get to weigh it in the 2AR. If you're a good 2A you can try giving me some spin as to why it's actually a cross-application from another flow or something, but it may not work. It is also possible that I will make large scale framing cross-applications for you/apply them more explicitly than you directed me to (that is, if they are in your side's speeches throughout the entire round). No argument is dropped if a meta-argument has answered it in enough detail. In this way, I suppose I am a "truth over tech judge." Truth is rewarded with a win, tech probably with excellent speaker points.
  13. I guess my question is, how does the Federal Government fund the plan, is the investment in loans? grants? I mean how exactly is the government getting the money to actually develop the infrastructure. Deficit spending is probably normal means. my next question is, where? I don't mean which bases, but what is the area like, are you improving current infrastructure or using new land for these changes? Yup, it's land which will be bought up and redeveloped -- our solvency evidence is based off entirely new roads, not repairs to existing ones. Can people just quit out of the military? People on the frontlines enlist for fixed periods of time, but they're deployed overseas anyway. Our evidence talks about personnel and civilian noncombat workers, who we'll argue keep all of the technology, administrative work, training procedures, planning, and more at certain level of readiness which is key to solve heg. With support systems, our power projection would be useless. The people who maintain these support systems can "just quit," and will, if the congestion continues. Do we know how long a commute would have to take to get someone to quit a job? We're not saying it's one particularly long instance of waiting that will make everyone irrationally throw up their hands and agree to be janitors at their neighborhood elementary schools instead of strategic planners. Systemic traffic times of status quo level, around 3-4 hours, are what will cause our impacts. so if congestion is going to exist inevitably, how do you solve I still don't really think you're understanding what I'm talking about. Congestion and the causes of congestion are linear, so using information about numerical increases of road users, more military families in more packed locations because of BRAC and things like this, we will respond with the corresponding increase of roads. Our whole argument is that congestion is not inevitable -- the definition of congestion is too many people in one lane; so regardless of why this is happening, more roads with more lanes spread the users out.
  14. who's the agent of the plan? We'll defend the DOD, it's what our first solvency card (from the TRB) suggests. what type of investment will the government use to enact the plan "Types of investment" typically encompass stocks and bonds and things - do you mean how we'll fund it? Is the question about spending, or topicality? How does the Government reducing congestion around domestic military bases create international cooperation to stop warming? Sure -- in the status quo congestion as a result of BRAC prevents adequate response and slows down both military and civilian responders as they attempt to get to the locations of disasters. Our cards talk about both domestic crises as well as international ones we can provide humanitarian aid with, but only if we're able to navigate roads at their maximum capacity. when will a disaster happen, or better yet how will the military be able to actually stop the impacts of a massive hurricane or flood from damaging the economy? Disasters are impossible to predict far in advance, which is one of the things which makes our timeframe most important. Of course we have monitors and things like that, but we'll argue that while international wars have their causes in buildup of tensions which we can attempt to address at multiple stages, the very nature of "natural" disasters is that they come and go completely independently of humans. There's an important distinction on your next question -- we're not claiming the economy as an impact -- we think better ability to navigate roads will help groups like the Coast Guard as well as Red Cross rescue people, and that the additional lanes will crucial in allowing people to evacuate areas where disasters will strike. How long until global warming would actually happen? Couple of key dates: All the ice will be gone from the Arctic by 2030, although sea level rises and corresponding flooding is more linear; we're attempted to pass the 2 degree tipping point by 2035, but conditions up to that point will make war and every other standard of living worse (including increasing natural disasters, which, if unmitigated, will cause extinction); and species extinctions caused by warming will peak around 2055, assuming we're still alive at that time, and we can read cards on how those losses will independently cause extinction because of food chain dependancies and medicinal capacity. Why would better training lead to more troop retention? The argument is that better roads lead to more troop retention, and that retention is key to training. The first argument is explained in our second internal link evidence, that soldiers will quit and find other jobs if their commutes are too long due to status quo congestion. The second argument is a) that we have to have troops in the first place in order to train them, that they can learn better when their lives are less fragmented and harried from 4 hours of daily traffic, and c) we have to eliminate factors that might make them quit down the line in order to know that our investment in their training is worthwhile. your TRB evidence talks about how the mass congestion is created by military families. How do you solve this? By adding more roads they can travel on? I feel like you're trying to make an alt cause argument, but we're not even trying to address root causes of congestion -- building more infrastructure is literally the end of the bottleneck, so it captures all prior congestion and causes of congestion. where would you be building this new infrastructure? Around every military base effected by the Base Realignment and Closure Act in the United States. Our evidence suggests some locations like Fort Lee, Fort Eustis, and Fort Drum. where in your federal key evidence does it say that the government is vital for congestion- it's talking about ports and airports and talks about how the natural role for states are dependent on geography? The evidence specifically indicates highways as well as all of that, which is what we are; in general, however, the framing of the quotation you cite addresses "cooperation and coordination," which is crucial to congestion solvency. If a road runs through one state to the border and then an adjacent state attempts to continue it but with a different system, it's impossible to solve. Later on in the card, McDowell and Edner also indicate that states no longer know how to address urban congestion, because they haven't been doing it for the last 100 years. The section on geographic responsibilities is merely contrasting issues within states with military jurisdiction -- obviously the army is national and managed by the federal government, not each individual state.
  15. 1AC: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6edvkllieo52tdr 2500/1500, as per our PM discussion, is fine!
  • Create New...