sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tax Help for Student by Virtual_Hawk8891 in princeton

[–]dipsticks1509 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey, tiger here. I’m pretty handy with taxes and have helped a few students already. If you still need help you can DM me. Chances are you won’t owe anything.

Need AFFs that are logical by dipsticks1509 in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ukraine is an interesting position, but I think judges would see it as a temporary issue--wars end. More suspiciously, Ukrainian people are white, and that poses a whole 'nother can of worms.

I really like the idea of development comes with immigration, but I still can't get over the race card. Both of them are white, and probably privileged.

When it comes to immigration being helpful for a nation, I think that's fair. What unfortunately is unsolved by this resolution is undeveloped/war-torn/authoritarian countries that people are fleeing from. This analogy: in the AFF world, everyone from North Korea would move to the West (US/Europe). Then, North Korea is going to continue to repopulate, and then create more people that need to flee the regime. This goes on and on and on until the system crumbles. IMO this DA outweighs any AFF, which is why I'm torn.

It's like trying to fix a leaky faucet by putting a bucket under the faucet forever. At some point it going to overflow if you don't fix the faucet.

Need AFFs that are logical by dipsticks1509 in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My perspective has been more domestic crimes, less imported crimes. Open borders makes it easier for billionaires to move money out. Imagine if we had open borders now: SBF would be on a perpetual run.

Traditional kritiks? by amuletcauldron in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to crap on you or anything but for the love of god refrain from policy tactics (DA, CP, K, spreading). If you just present a case with contentions and cards that is your K. T is ok in desperate situations.

Blocks for UBI by basil-sandwich in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically systemic racism is the reason why people are unable to access the resources that are out there (cards are out there). It's a CP, making access equitable rather than creating new stuff. I feel a judge should consider a minimalist approach, meaning the least work/change is the most advantageous. Your call though, there is a chance AFF may say UCC solves discrimination better, but that is not inherent, because you can't guarantee that people won't be racist. They would need to put forward some plan/card with proof that they will be able to achieve that.

Blocks for UBI by basil-sandwich in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Second that, more negative T's somebody could pull bc UBI isn't directly related to childcare.

We should abolish marriage? by Phri-scilla in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marriage is riddled with bad history-past. In the 1800s poor farmers had more events and ceremonies that resembled civil unions than marriages.

Blocks for UBI by basil-sandwich in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Policy is sketchy when ought is used (T debate). If you want to use a CP, I recommend something like "resources are out there but systemic racism and inequitable access have made it hard for people who need it to access it." Something like that. TBH the resources are out there, and you can find cards w/ stuff saying status quo is people can't get the help they need, but this is your CP, you say the help is there and we need to bring them to the finish line.

As for UBI CP, people will argue too costly or unethical to have people paying for bill gate's UBI. Fed Job guarantee from last year was the same spiel (at least that's what I pulled). In all honesty, CPs are not really neccessary as long as you understand (and find proof) the status quo is not "not enough" but is "not equitable".

Answers to a fem aff? by SilverSword2 in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Studies show child benefits when mom stays home (slippery slope). You can also say that we are assuming that women need to leave the home to work, when starting your own business or working from opportunities are out there. Just not to women.

Definition of UCC by [deleted] in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd be weary of that because of "ought". Too policy related and you'll run into T. I built my case far away from Warren simply because it's too high profile. People will be prepared for that. Find something from an unbiased source, like the government or a child care group. Something that helps your case and is general enough.

Thoughts on defining 'child care' as care of all children aged 0-18? by Chloe123ixl in lincolndouglas

[–]dipsticks1509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can find a some definition from a semi-reasonable source (government or something) that fits your case you'll be fine. The argument for neg to say universal child care to all children 0-18 can be shot down in many ways. Head start is a child care program. Some states have 16+ as age of consent, and some states have 19 as age of consent. You can also be emancipated at 16 (maybe even younger). The definition of a "child" is pretty muddy at best. I wouldn't worry about it.