Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TheSnowball last won the day on January 18 2019

TheSnowball had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1433 Excellent

About TheSnowball

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    University of Kansas
  • Biography
    Previously "Rnivium"

Recent Profile Visitors

14735 profile views
  1. The martyrdom K seems commodifying of Rosa Parks as well as of the ballot.
  2. See, thing is, that's a lot of fancy notation you just used the meaning of which I won't investigate. But using logic to disprove logic seems to already require logic to work.
  3. Yeah, one logical paradox =/= logic doesn't exist.
  4. "Russell's paradox is based on examples like this: Consider a group of barbers who shave only those men who do not shave themselves. Suppose there is a barber in this collection who does not shave himself; then by the definition of the collection, he must shave himself. But no barber in the collection can shave himself. (If so, he would be a man who does shave men who shave themselves.)" ??? why, "by the definition of the collection" must he shave himself? The collection says he can only shave men who don't shave themselves, not that all men who don't shave themselves must be shaved by him.
  5. Every day... thousands of debaters across the country struggle to access this beautiful activity that we all know and love... because of the select few that decide to ruin it... with plans that aren't substantial. You, judge, have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many young scholars. All you have to do? Sign your ballot for the Negative.
  6. Political capital is a term used to describe the influence, credibility, energy, focus, and time that the president uses to rally Congress around particular policies. The theory of political capital argues that it is quantifiable, finite, and "zero-sum." The basic politics DA would say, "Trump is using his political capital to push X through Congress. The plan, a controversial immigration reform, saps that political capital, undermining the legislative momentum necessary to pass X. X is good because impacts."
  7. Sounds like your CP might link to your DA, by the way. "Your ballot is not a rallying cry--it merely decides who won and lost the debate--that's the only equitable interpretation--vote Negative if we prove the plan's costs outweigh its benefits."
  8. You need a role of the ballot that matches the kind of strategy you're reading. A generic one would be "vote for the team that debated better--their interpretation isn't competitively equitable."
  9. Elimination is a form of reduction Morton 12 (BA Melbourne University, Workshop on management) 58. The term “reduce” includes eliminate i.e. someone can reduce some­thing to nothing. Federal code proves elimination is a way to reduce. US Code 2005 (Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue (December 2005), 26 CFR 54.4980F-1, http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/54-significantly-reducing-future-accrual-19711258) (c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms reduce or reduction include eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation. Legislation proves reduce can mean eliminate – you can reduce to zero. Major Samuel W. Kan, Judge Advocate, U.S. Army, citing Virginia Code, January 2010, Army Lawyer, Lexis Academic n316 VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-322 (Westlaw 2010) ("$ 15,000 of military basic pay for military service personnel on extended active duty for periods in excess of 90 days; however, the subtraction amount shall be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount which the taxpayer's military basic pay exceeds $ 15,000 and shall be reduced to zero if such military basic pay amount is equal to or exceeds $ 30,000.").
  10. The resolution suggests that some goal should be achieved--this year's high school topic has the goal of decreased restrictions on immigration. A topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration. A plan that is effectually topical "effects-T" takes an action that leads to reduced restrictions on immigration. An extra-topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration and does something besides reducing restrictions on immigration. Effects- and extra-topicality are either run independently or as a standard on a normal topicality shell. If you're on the Affirmative trying to answer this argument, you either need to defend why your plan is not effects topical or extra-topical or justify why the action of your plan should still be considered part of the topic. A common instance of effects-topicality seems to be on the debate over whether legal immigration means legal permanent residence. The 2AC might say "we meet--the visas the Affirmative provides could lead to legal permanent residence." The Negative could respond "that means the plan is effects topical because anything "could lead" to legal permanent residence." The Affirmative could argue that the Negative's interpretation excludes really important Affirmatives like Dreamers or H1-Bs and the Negative could say including those cases doesn't limit the topic enough.
  11. They should call you OutKantTheKant.
  12. You just Kant even right now.
  13. Wake me up! (wake me up inside) I Kant wake up! (wake me up inside) saaave me!
  14. I'm sorry but I simply Kant help you.
  15. If I'm looking at the right files, the naturalization CP is about shielding undocumented immigrants in the U.S. now from deportation and the visas one is about allowing states to determine their own level of immigration. I don't know what the combined CP solves that the visas CP doesn't given visas allows immigrants to apply for LPR. People will say combining CPs bad because no card assumes the CPs together, it's unpredictable, tries to spike out of reasonable solvency deficits. Also, people will ask if conditionality means you can kick one plank and go for the other. Say "no" or be prepared to defend you can do that.
  • Create New...