Jump to content

ARGogate

Member
  • Content Count

    1356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Everything posted by ARGogate

  1. you should start by finding that paper about squidward
  2. Scheper-Hugher tradeoff DA ftw
  3. The problem with the rez is "domestic surveillance" isn't a term of art. That means anything that surveilles something in the us is T
  4. Aziz Rana has an article called "Who Decides on National Security?"
  5. Tbh the way this is worded gives the neg an enormous amount of ground
  6. Northwestern war powers archive
  7. btw if the slave was the first power relation it proves biopolitics came before antiblackness
  8. I have no idea what this k is. I doubt it's on any (war powers) (college) wiki. Anyone?
  9. I coach Peninsula so maybe my view isn't the most universally applicable to the area where you'll do LD, but at the top level it's very similar.
  10. ARGogate

    CX TOC

    Last chance of the season to meet me and Snarf!!!!!!!! WHO WILL JOIN US???
  11. I've had a hard time cutting good ones that actually say the bill will pass.
  12. I also had one more question about the debatability stuff you talked about. Maybe I should have made this more explicit at the top, but what's the reason that specifying in the plan text causes a reverse tradeoff? I guess, more broadly, why does my interp preclude discussions of desirability and how did you weigh that vs the argument that the predictable ground for not specifying is just surveillance good (which is quite limiting absent infinite cross-x)? Or did you not evaluate all this because you thought that I didn't access any out-of-round benefit anyways? In which case, if this debate isn't key, then how did you evaluate the regression and "they can run bad PICs" arguments (which I thought were the aff's 2 main offensive warrants for debatability turns decisionmaking)? Like, I can see why this could have been an aff ballot had the 2AR been straight up interp + reasonability, but he went for an internal link turn based off factors which my interp would justify, so I guess I'm just a little confused.
  13. It was a spec arg and I thought I made the interp when I said this (though maybe not clear enough): "They don’t meet – there’s 3 branches but they all have different capabilities – our evidence is about the NSA – they also don’t specify the method of curtailment – at worst you vote on a risk of neg offense vs zero risk of aff offense"
  14. Well the way my potential plan was worded was that congress just ban NSA surveillance. There's probably sweeping ban solvency advocates tpo
  15. Snarf's the resident lawyer, so disregard whatever I say until he vets it I'm not sure how congress can redefine Article II powers - they don't explicitly authorize surveillance, so it seems like the courts would have to get involved. The word "prohibit" also means "ban" in law, though I may be wrong about that too What about The United States federal government should statutorily prohibit domestic surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency. That's T because NSA isn't all of surveillance. It meets the burden of spec because it provides an actor+mechanism (statute = congress, prohibit=mechanism). It may be too much war powers topic, though.
  16. Since when is voting on inherency "traditional." If the plan happened in the status quo, the aff doesn't have an aff anymore...
  17. EVERYONE who wants to judge can write up an RFD - just be prepared to defend it from both sides Thought of a conditionality joke but nah
  18. *handshake* Hey we actually finished. Is this a new record?
×
×
  • Create New...