Jump to content

CH_NU

Member
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Good

About CH_NU

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Connor
  • School
    Nevada Union High School
  1. I would still really like to continue this round, but my finals week starts Monday, which is really my number one priority right now. Sorry. If you'd be cool with waiting, awesome, if not, sorry. And ya, the Michigan/Westminster debate complex. Not trying to call anyone out or offend anyone, I have some friends from Westminster and I went to camp at Michigan last summer, but I am of the belief that "big" debate schools that traditionally frown on critical argumentation invented the idea of the "Floating PIK". I mean, think about it. First, the word "floating" is completely unnecessary and is obviously an attempt to frame critical alternatives as something mysterious and illegitimate that cannot be understood. Also, there is such a stigma around piks as compared to pics, but it's hard to think theoretical objection that applies to piks but not pics. It is also a relatively new term, coined in the past 7 years or so, which seems to at least match the time when debate started really becoming polarized (I obviously wasn't around before that, or even that long ago, so I could definitely, easily be wrong about that, it's just something I've heard from a couple ex-debaters who were around before that). Finally, the very idea of the question it's asking, "is the plan possible in the world of the alt?", is kind of weird. Yes, obviously. Our alternative does not propose a policy option, it rather proposes a different ideology than the aff does. We say the 1AC should not be done. Why does the fact that we have a different philosophical belief than the aff affect federal policy? It doesn't make any sense. That's just my personal opinion though.
  2. I would really like this to continue but sadly this is not my top priority right now. My finals week starts monday, so I'm kind of stressing about that. If you'd like to wait, that'd be awesome. If not, I understand.
  3. Cross-x. This is all for right now, but I plan on follow-up questions based on responses 1. Just to clarify, we're just like "fuck the topic" at this point right? 2. What's the point of the detailed sex scenes? 3. Why is Snow White key?
  4. Also, only comment I have about the 1AC before cx: DIS GON' BE FUN
  5. 1. Our Peters evidence (albeit not in the highlighted part L ) does make a claim that communications infrastructure contrasts with other utilities. We’ll defend TI is the underlying structure that moves goods or people. We’ll read more ev in the block if need be 2. Communications infrastructure J 3. Ya, I know, Peters isn’t the best on defining TI, but rather he sets a brightline at comm infrastructure. We don’t have a piece of ev defending our interp of TI (as stated above), but any ev we read on that question will support that interp 4. Doesn’t have one. We say your imperialist (maybe more Jingoist?), that’s bad, we as high school students should analyze that in an academic setting. Not a competitive policy option. But if you wanna play that game, it’s 1K (and as demonstrated by the 1NC structure probably 2NR unless you mess up T), GTF over it. 5. What? Yes, you’re asking if we’re a floating pik. However, seeing as I am of the belief that this is a construction of the Michigan/Westminster debate complex, it doesn’t make any sense. Our “alt†(to bastardize this base of literature in the same manner) is that we as high school students should analyze the history of colonialism. If you’re asking if analyzing this history as high school debaters will stop the usfg from implementing policy, well probably not. Even if we play the spill over game, we think we should critically analyze the empire, I would like you to explain to me what that has to do with GPS infrastructure. 6. Sure. Short Answer: Virtual War: Der Derian Says we are in a state of perpetual war. We are always tests of our defense, upgrading them, engaging in military exercises, and deploying troops and forces to other parts of the world. We are a constant military state. An incredibly high percentage of our resources go to beefing up these capabilities, to the point where we employ drones and guided missiles to do our dirty work. That type of warfare is virtual war Virtuous War: The “war for TV.†The war that is thought to be fought for to preserve virtues and values, to stop the spread of evil. Rallying the support of the American populous around this effort to defeat the enemy. In the status quo, these appeals to morality are made with increasing frequency, and is applied to most every conflict, skirmish, hegemonic policy move our government engages in, framing this constant state of warfare I reference earlier as a virtuous one to cover up its flawed roots for beginning. 7. Couple things here: First, simulation of war is not the summation of our arg, the first piece of Der Derian evidence discusses the evolution of modern, technological warfare (ie your discourse of technological advancement in order to secure hegemony, deter threats etc) feeds into the notion of “cleanliness†in combat in pursuit of security, allowing us as a whole, military included, to feel better about brutal murder of enemies because technology allows us to avoid to implications that has for those responsible for these deaths, as well as the implications it has for the American populous, allowing it to continue. The second part, that about simulation of warfare, is mostly based off of your PGS shit. I pretty sure the link is self-explanatory, the ability to shoot a ballistic missile (or whatever) at anyone anywhere in the world is the ultimate example the pixallization of the enemy; it is no longer about killing others to secure US interests, it is Call of Duty Black Ops 3. 8. Well I would say everywhere – this leads to that, GPS -> tracking deforestation habits, you predict it would reverse deforestation, etc. Rather not go into all of it. 9. Ya, so the Trennel ev isn’t highlighted the best (blame the lack of coherent sentences on the MSDI, not me), however, the thesis of this card is …actually, shmeh, fuck it. It’s a pretty terrible card as is.
  6. The problem here is that courts can definitely change rulings on policies, etc. But they can't actually implement policy options. Maybe if you had some sort of policy shift arg based on a court ruling, but that fx t. Also, it's really tough with hsr because there's not really a policy to amend at this point. You ev about Equal Protection Grounds would have to be really good and really specific, and I don't think that exists because I feel like it's just not true. I don't know. I haven't done any research on this portion of the topic. Maybe you're right. I just think these affs on theses sorts of topics are nearly impossible to pull off because you can't directly implement anything, especially where the rez says "investment." You have to deal with all the capital spending stuff, the courts dont implement it, etc. However, if you somehow found some way to pull it off, I don't see how you could beat T.
  7. F*ck it, 1 off frontier. Come at me
  8. Largest Flaw: Probably sucks that the Supreme Court can't actually implement projects. Makes solvency tough. I assume when you say Equal Protection Clause, that you're refer to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which, while it discusses the agency of citizens, doesn't allow the Supreme Court to implement infrastructure projects. PS: I get the strategic values of using the Supreme Court as an actor to get out of ptix, but in the future, wouldn't really recommend writing an aff to avoid ASPEC...like, to put that in perspective, that's almost as stupid as the argument you think you "link" to now (OSPEC)
  9. 2 off, case It's probably a little over 2000, but I think it's reasonable http://www.mediafire.com/view/?9uh9j9l6d3jlbs1
  10. Heads up for the judges: At least from my side, this round is definitely going lefty. 1NC is up in 2 minutes
  11. ACTUALLY i'm good for cx right now 1. If you wouldn’t mind just sort of explaining to me exactly what you’re plan does? All the little specifics in your plan text? 2. What’s the timeframe for implementation of the processes your plan outlines, until they’re fully functional? 3. Explain your PGS scenario. Is it like “because we can kill you anytime anywhere, no one gonna start shit?†4. I understand Kagan has an orgy of warrants, but as you’ve highlighted it, where does it outline a specific war scenario? 5. You’re Scholl ev, the first card on the food scenario, where does that say anything about small farms? Where does that say anything about anything really? 6. I get that GPS allows us to monitor deforestation, but how does it solve it?
  12. cx will be up tomorrow/ What's the word count? EDIT: Rather, what word count max would you wish to use?
  13. Lookin for a debate. Aff or neg. Any arg type or whatever. All the args I read will be from open evidence, just a heads up
×
×
  • Create New...