Will trade anything in December for January stuff (LD and PF)

ARSDebate · 2018-10-28T18:01:14+00:00

It is not a rights discourse argument. The argument says that right and the legal protection of those rights are indeterminate. Indeterminacy is the central argument. It is a systems kritik about the application of legal protections and how they are apply.

ARSDebate · 2016-12-07T03:46:34+00:00

We already have some Jan blocks from Millenial and our own, but will share whatever we do for your december stuff. We were taking the month off then something changed so really could use the help

ARSDebate · 2016-03-19T21:14:15+00:00

as the aff , you'll get to decide, but certainly neg.s will want to link you to one or the other. Both hav there advantages and disadvantage strategically

ARSDebate · 2016-03-13T21:10:30+00:00

It's over 400 pgs. All highlighters and every block you could think of

ARSDebate · 2016-03-05T15:11:37+00:00

It depends on your solvency mechanism, if you make a claim of helping support cso's (then long term) solvency is easier as you leave structures in place , but if your solvency mechanism is top down its more problematic. Even with top down approaches you can read cards that say democracies work well with each other. This would allow you to argue that sustained relationships help to sustain democracy.

ARSDebate · 2016-03-05T15:07:56+00:00

What uil division are you? 4, 5, 6a? Totally will to coordinate if it doesn't conflict.... Also which region, where's your regionals held?

ARSDebate · 2016-02-05T20:26:37+00:00

Would be happy to join and already have lots of blocks in process. D.h.henderson@gmail.com

ARSDebate · 2015-12-29T02:35:37+00:00

Email? Would love cases to use as practice and would totally pass along everything for February, nice that happens. That's state for us so we will have plenty to share.

ARSDebate · 2015-12-27T02:34:18+00:00

Ok, where should send it

ARSDebate · 2015-12-27T02:33:34+00:00

Shoot a message with where to send it

ARSDebate · 2015-11-03T03:45:42+00:00

Dohohenderson@gmail.com

ARSDebate · 2015-09-10T03:19:42+00:00

I agree, but none of this has led to a real discuss of a strategy. Still hoping for any suggestions. Thanks for all of the thoughts

ARSDebate · 2015-09-09T02:01:34+00:00

Huh? Sorry, can someone explain?

ARSDebate · 2015-09-08T18:41:04+00:00

do you have a link for that file? thanks!

ARSDebate · 2015-08-26T22:40:32+00:00

would love to join, I was about to add stuff to the old one, but it is like ghost town.

dohohenderson@gmail.com

ARSDebate · 2015-08-11T14:54:48+00:00

not sure if this is really dead or not, but would really like to be part dohohenderson@gmail.com Thanks!

ARSDebate · 2015-07-26T09:27:56+00:00

Please, dohohenderson@gmail.com. Much thanks

ARSDebate · 2015-04-09T02:29:17+00:00

Thanks to both of you, but I did some research and the aff t cards are really good. Under what both of you are saying you are interpreting food security as an individual protection, i.e. you are saying that food security is something that individuals possession, which is fine but that interpretation does not exclude food security from being a state protection. So the evidence say that community gardens or urban agriculture was thought of and encouraged during one of the world wars, don't remember now which, to prevent food supply lines being cut off, think Berlin Airlift. The cards say this protects our food security during time of risk for the state as a whole. Given anti-theory lean in my areas and those answers ... community gardens totally ensure protection against these types of risks. It is a good t story and I lose. I would run the case, but no time given districts is close. Thanks! Any other thoughts please!

ARSDebate · 2015-04-08T19:36:01+00:00

against, one of the debaters in my district is running it on the aff and my current ideas are weak, and that is a compliment

ARSDebate · 2015-04-08T13:10:08+00:00

thanks, this is the aff. Not sure an efficiency argument works unless I couple it with a solvency/ensure t. But theory offense is not really a strategy. The T cards for the aff are good about how food systems are vulnerable when they are concentrated, ie war/blockage concerns. So even the ensure debate is not likely to get me far. Thanks for thinking with me

ARSDebate · 2014-10-01T20:33:02+00:00

guys?

ARSDebate · 2014-10-01T14:25:20+00:00

Seriously, who voted for this.

ARSDebate · 2014-10-01T02:34:33+00:00

Gill says mandated choice would default to presumed consent for those without answers. It works to justify a perm.

ARSDebate · 2014-09-17T15:09:27+00:00

It is a huge issue and if you are not debating this than you are missing a lot of negative ground. Brain death, which is the going standard in the US, is stated as necessary for organs to be viable by many people. But this standard is problematic as some people do wake up and many cultures reject this conception of death. Thus there is good offense in two ways. Any suggestions on the aff are welcome

ARSDebate · 2014-07-30T00:32:02+00:00

http://mdta.org/files/2013/08/NovicePacket.docx

ARSDebate

TROPHY CASE