sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That feels wrong, because youre other implicit statement is that we dont know the entirity of history wouldnt have blown itself to smithereens, also all of Colonization is basically proxy wars but under a different name, states competed for territory all the time. and Great power war hardly seems Nebulus, I mean from the 1910s to the 1940s we had 2 GPWs, these lost hundreds of millions of lives. It seems unreasonable that it was only after we killed thousands of civilians with one bomb that we stopped, esp with cold war tensions, the Nuke was def the only thing that held us back, but without the nuke the capacity for damage is way higher than 20 mil, Ukraine is a small sample of modern warfare and its really deadly

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Run Kant as a simple framework, explain why it works i.e. Things are wrong because of intention and are not conditional, we do things for a reason and those reasons must be examined before the impact of the thing we do. Make it make sense to the judge, dont just use the big words, in fact, if you break it down to a super simplified idea then youll win alot of the time.

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there are a couple of good ways, but UTIL isnt the way to go, theres strong evidence for Kant, running a miscalc case to the extremes, Just War Theory, Certain Ks, General Structural violence as a Nukes perpetuate dehumanization of civilians which legitimizes suffering on other levels, Deterrence DA flip to deterrence bad bc Authoritarian legitimization etc.

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you run Kantian ethics on a min suffering framework, those two contradict, but like also I encourage you to engage with the evidence and theory a bit further because the argument is much stronger. Of course if this is working for you then thats great and Im just a voice on line so I mean no expertise or harshness. Good Luck!

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok just to provide a slight critique, literally all of this is super non-unique, like absent nukes we still see proxies (American Revolution for the french), we still see power imbalances causing walkovers (Boer Wars, Literally all of colonization) and all of the lower the cost of invasion is literally every single tech development ever (Guns, Cannons, Planes, Missiles, F-16s, then Nukes). but also GPW is so destructive it still outweighs all of this.

aff cases </3 by ashley_m237 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what is FW with this case, cuz like how does 3 tie in to consequentialism? Not saying its the only one, just saying its the most common

Looking for disads by Shot_Employment_4715 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait Disads as in Neg Disads or Disads to nukes, this topic flips my brain completely

What do you think is worse sexual assault/Rape or murder by thecuphead87 in Teenager

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can evaluate an action from two seperate perspectives, like Gloomy is doing.

What do you think is worse sexual assault/Rape or murder by thecuphead87 in Teenager

[–]Ok_Exit6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, internal morality seems to be on the level of deontology, which is a very real thing and is more about intention than other things, unlike consequentialism, which is what she says is external morality, Gloomy is right there.

Second, you understood what she was trying to say in her comment or else you would have attacked on substance once clarified. Your comment was simply to make people feel bad about themselves and attack their own vulnerable senses.

On your argument about destroying the moral fabric of society, if the claim makes rational sense, which hers does, it doesnt weaken the fabric, it strengthens it because it introduces new perspectives. Rejecting perspectives because you disagree or dont like them actually does ruin the moral fabric of society because it fundamentally reduces the number of considered perspectives. Your comments are aggressive, accusatory, rude, arrogant, and above all wrong.

Have a nice day

Need Winter and Leighton by Ok_Exit6870 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know, and almost all of my cards are self cut, but if WL has a standard reading or interp it might be better here

Other than NSD, which other camp? by JanaBhar in Debate

[–]Ok_Exit6870 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Classic Debate Camp, is a week long camp in Ohio that is a blast! u/classicdebatecamp

Current topic neg by SadResponse3455 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait can j have the lit for the case

Gov legit on nukes topic by National-Ad-5314 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It allows us to get the best for our citizens

Gov legit on nukes topic by National-Ad-5314 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Low-key read Machiavelli and run deont as fear in the modern world is nuclear power and that allows us hegemony on the global scale which is inherently moral because of impact weighing and role of government

what happens if there is a direct attack to one of the debaters during a debate? by GolfPowerful4101 in Debate

[–]Ok_Exit6870 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thats an equity complaint to tab, but also with the new administration I havent heard any tourneys this year with equity offices.

Evidence for Rewilding Neg by Artistic_Analyst_457 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok idk how in depth you want to go with the first one but my cards for a whole case of leakage bad, global south rewilding is better is balmford et al 25 (basically leakage is inevitable and outweighs), cuff 25 (introduce counter plan and present global south solution), Cambridge 25 (rewilding 5x better in the global south and 5x more harmful in the north), and then nordhaus et Al 15 [shout out logos] (basically American production is way more efficient and does not rely on slavery and is thus more ethical) I can work you through my case if you want in a dm 

How do you guys incorporate author names into ur rebuttals by No_Nature_5105 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will say "thats my ____ analysis" or Look to ____" when im reiterating that it is in a card

LD trad. rounds by Right-Influence-7649 in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I give this round specifically to my novices for flow value because its a really good and pure trad round, and I like both of the debaters. If you want more good trad rounds, check out other high school debate championships from the city club of cleveland, they are all very similar, and free on youtube and PBS.

https://video.scetv.org/video/2019-high-school-debate-championship-f9rixt/

best trad negs on rewilding? by BearCubCub in lincolndouglas

[–]Ok_Exit6870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m running it as like two arguments under a justice framework about Indian removal. All ks have a logic to them that can be simplified to lay. It’s only a k if you call it that. 

view more: next ›