Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About nadiadaniela

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Mpls South
  1. sorry for the wait- https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyqwvcnpmpj62dc/2nr.docx i can get through it in 5 min, it is slightly slurred but what are ya gunna do
  2. anthro- 3. we defend the status quo in terms of how we interact with them case- 1. i wouldn't even group them all together, and i would call them by their names, that seems to be clarification enough 2. it was an analytical argument 3. it's not about the discourse behind giving them the water, it's the discourse behind giving them the water to stop a potential war. again, the add-on wasn't flowed on case
  3. anthro- 1. on the cp, we talk about how the "rules" we set in this round wont affect the the "rules" set in other rounds. on the k, we argue that the representations that you use while setting up arguments, the way YOU see the world is flawed. 2. the only way that we can understand your ethics/beliefs is through the way that you articulate things. we cant see into your brain, so we have to go off of what you first bring up and how it is represented to the viewer (the 1ac). even if you personally agree with what we are kritiking, the only way that we can know that is if you tell us. we believe that you would not have represented things in certain ways if they did not back up what you believed. (and there shouldnt be a re-explantion of your ethics, etc., in the 1ar- that could have been done in the 2ac.) 3. we believe the main idea of what introna is saying to be true, but we are defining a "being" as a living creature. we added the katz and oeschsli 93 card to better represent the alt (and we hear that you don't like the vague alts.. ) 4. you don't do the plan, there are probably no pets or zoos, basically anything that would hurt something living would not be done. 5. education- its either uneducational for you because you don't truly learn and understand all of the aspects of your plan because you will just perm any advocacy that touches on parts of the plan you haven't thought through, or is uneducational for us because you just perm stuff instead of working through it and debating out its benefits, links, diasvantages, etc. also, if you switch your advocacy now, there is no development of argumentation. everything that we've argued thus far goes away and never gets truly explained and debated and if we bring up anything else to negate your new advocacy, that only gets 5 minutes of development (and is probably insanely unfair) fairness- if we let you shift your advocacy like this, we allow you to switch what you are advocating at any time in the debate to whatever you want it to be. this allows for things like new 2ar advocacies and permutations that sever out of everything but (for example) one dollar being invested in the plan which avoids links and it would be too late for us to bring up new t violations. other rounds could check back on education, but not on fairness, if we lose this round because it is unfair, our next round isnt somehow going to make up for it.. 6. there are more living things that arent humans than there are that are humans and with the alt we get to fiat no "alt rollback" case- 1. we would not represent them like that, no 2. our links are off of the plans prediction of terrorism happening at the port 3. and as you said, we are no longer in the bush era, when the government issues a plan to avoid terrorist attacks, it re-affirms the legitamacy of terrorist attacks and attacks back at those terrorists like we did see under the bush administration 4. they don't 5. it's about predicted wars, while it cites one specific example, we argue that the concept can be applied to this indo-pak "water war" 6. im not sure if i understand this question, but i feel like most people want cooperation rather than war.. 7. aren't you arguing a war scenario between india and pakistan? and if you're talking about the add-on, that was answered on kappeler because i asked where you wanted it flowed and you said the k 8. yes, considering only this flow. "win" is also a word that we each may understand differently though, so.. 9. it doesn't really matter how you go about stopping these "water wars", its about taking action to stop them at all that links anthro again- 1. i don't really know what "any version" entails, but an affirmative that invests in what the 1ac describes- no, it still dredges/harms animals, an affirmative that solves for the advantages- possibly, but it would have to be a completely different plan than what you proposed
  4. here's the 1nr: http://db.tt/nTPZLTtQ cx will be answered when i get off of my phone
  5. yeah, the 1nr is already written, ill get Dana to post it tonight
  6. 2nc, should the 1nr just be posted after cx? https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nf77si62qvyiix/2nc.docx download it, if you view it online the formatting gets really messed up.
  7. oh and also, can we talk about the introna not being anthro thing after the round?
  8. okay thank you. one more quick question- i wont hold you to any specific countries you list, but could you just give me an idea of which countries would become part of the multipolar control? (i might be misunderstanding your argument)
  9. 2. yes, i would like more evidence on the timeframe in the 1ar k- 3. because all you said was "to put more than", if there is more than "re-concieve violence" in the block as an alt explanation, is it still "too vague"? 6. so the cards should be answered in terms of the kritik, correct? anthro (sorry that this was confusing, we want to run it as anthro)- 4. so living organisms have an inherent value to their lives? 5. i should have phrased this question differently. i know the impact to our criticism, but without that in mind (the way the author wrote those cards), can you give me a run-through of the chain of events that the turn describes and what final impact the plan avoids in a world where you are not granting us the genocide impact?
  10. also on the kappeler k- 8. (Fisher and Shragge 02) You say activism and organization on the local and global level is necessary, how is this the same thing as re-conceiving violence? How do we acknowledge that we are the cause of violence on a global scale rather than individually? and how does your plan help us do this? on anthro- 5. why is an oil spill that kills animals bad?
  • Create New...