Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Police presence affs?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Walter Russell Mead

Walter Russell Mead

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 73 posts
117
Excellent
  • Name:Keith Monaghan
  • School:Shawnee Mission South

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:20 PM

Anybody heard of any good ones? I haven't really seen any police presence aff.
  • 0

#2 Needs More Consult Japan

Needs More Consult Japan

    Arts & Leisure

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
1,556
Excellent
  • Name:James Stevenson

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:28 PM

I believe the Afghanistan counternarcotics aff qualifies as reducing police presence
  • 0
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#3 siegby

siegby

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts
37
Good
  • Name:Sieggy
  • School:Springfield Central High

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:22 PM

bump. I'm curious as well. I imagine there is a police presence in Kuwait, Iraq, and probably Afghanistan. Most police presences are probably going to be more kritikal than policy oriented (I also imagine).

Then again what do I know?
  • 0

#4 dynastydebate

dynastydebate

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
12
Good

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:29 PM

mercenaries = police presence
  • 0
Think of yourself as a contradiction.

#5 ChetanFS

ChetanFS

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts
6
Okay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 05:46 AM

mercenaries = police presence


eh... i really don't think that's true. mercenaries (if topical) are military presence. imo police presence=security apparatus to sustain order (Iraq, the "training" and "backup" guys), my aff will be leaning towards this definition of police presence (although im also including military presence).
  • 0
"I don't see the glass as half empty or half full, I see it as handy in a bar fight" -Anonymous

#6 dynastydebate

dynastydebate

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
12
Good

Posted 24 July 2010 - 12:16 PM

of course it does depend on your definition, i just prefer to think of mercenaries as police presence since they are hired and are not part of the US' military. but then again the types of presence (military, police) are defined by function, not by relation.
  • 0
Think of yourself as a contradiction.

#7 Ho Chi Minh

Ho Chi Minh

    Banned User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • Name:Phil Derpen
  • School:Department of Philosophy

Posted 27 July 2010 - 11:22 AM

of course it does depend on your definition, i just prefer to think of mercenaries as police presence since they are hired and are not part of the US' military. but then again the types of presence (military, police) are defined by function, not by relation.


yes. that is exactly why they are police presence. their main purpose there is to stabilize the region- they are officially noncombat troops.
  • 0

#8 JTesu CX

JTesu CX

    Registered User

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
10
Good

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:40 AM

The discussion of "police presence" is a little sketchy. The problem is that the literature doesn't usually distinguish between "military presence" and "police presence"...probably because all the "police" are MILITARY POLICE!--hence the resolution is largely redundant.

MERCS: not even close to topical! I would love to see this T evidence...CONTEXTUAL evidence (not just saying Mercs "police"). HOWEVER, "mercs good" is a possible advantage (they'll fill in if we leave?).

AFGHANISTAN AFF: Have not seen this one...I'm willing to bet the "police" are just a part of the larger counternarcotics operation

This is all unfortunate...I was hoping for that part of the topic to be live...But its hard to get a good advantage when removing police forces from Okinawa means that the soldiers there that rape women would have no military personnel "policing" their actions (more rape because no cops?), or removing police from Iraq, which may cause instability in urban centers...?

...wish it whould have been space or SE Asia!
  • 0

#9 Walter Russell Mead

Walter Russell Mead

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 73 posts
117
Excellent
  • Name:Keith Monaghan
  • School:Shawnee Mission South

Posted 03 August 2010 - 04:02 PM

The discussion of "police presence" is a little sketchy. The problem is that the literature doesn't usually distinguish between "military presence" and "police presence"...probably because all the "police" are MILITARY POLICE!--hence the resolution is largely redundant.

MERCS: not even close to topical! I would love to see this T evidence...CONTEXTUAL evidence (not just saying Mercs "police"). HOWEVER, "mercs good" is a possible advantage (they'll fill in if we leave?).

AFGHANISTAN AFF: Have not seen this one...I'm willing to bet the "police" are just a part of the larger counternarcotics operation

This is all unfortunate...I was hoping for that part of the topic to be live...But its hard to get a good advantage when removing police forces from Okinawa means that the soldiers there that rape women would have no military personnel "policing" their actions (more rape because no cops?), or removing police from Iraq, which may cause instability in urban centers...?

...wish it whould have been space or SE Asia!


Space topic would be awesome.
  • 0

#10 fahrenba

fahrenba

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
29
Good

Posted 03 August 2010 - 04:39 PM

It was the topic in 90-91:

http://en.wikipedia....(policy_debate)
  • 0

#11 DeCoach

DeCoach

    Resident curmudgeon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts
942
Excellent
  • Name:Gregg Hartney
  • School:Jenks HS, Oklahoma

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:35 AM

The "Korean War" was officially designated a "police action" as we were there under the auspices of the United Nations; I was not at the topic selection conference but I suspect that the "police" term was included to allow for that distinction
  • -1
Never argue with a fool; they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

#12 DeCoach

DeCoach

    Resident curmudgeon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts
942
Excellent
  • Name:Gregg Hartney
  • School:Jenks HS, Oklahoma

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:41 AM

Space topic would be awesome.


I coached on the space topic, and it wasn't all that great. Because space programs are so freakin' expensive and the US was so deep in debt (this was prior to Clinton's amazing success at creating a budget surplus), and most of the space advantages are ridiculously long time frames, almost all the Aff cases centered around what we could do on the cheap. The time frame on deficit DAs vastly beat out the case impacts. By the end of the year, I judged all through the TOC and deep into elims at NFL Nats and heard THREE different Aff cases. It got kinda boring.

Edited by DeCoach, 04 August 2010 - 06:45 AM.

  • 0
Never argue with a fool; they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

#13 Ho Chi Minh

Ho Chi Minh

    Banned User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • Name:Phil Derpen
  • School:Department of Philosophy

Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:25 AM

The discussion of "police presence" is a little sketchy. The problem is that the literature doesn't usually distinguish between "military presence" and "police presence"...probably because all the "police" are MILITARY POLICE!--hence the resolution is largely redundant.


that b true.

MERCS: not even close to topical! I would love to see this T evidence...CONTEXTUAL evidence (not just saying Mercs "police"). HOWEVER, "mercs good" is a possible advantage (they'll fill in if we leave?).


By "MERCS" i assume you mean "private military companies" or "PMCs' or something of the like? yes, they are quite topical- fall under "its" as under USFg control- just look at all the camp evidence. Multiple camps put this out, it should be easy to find and is free. Look on Planet Debate, NDCA Open Evidence forum or there is even a thread on Cross-x where you can get them [the Evidence Trading forum, btw]. so yes, they are.

mercs fill-in if we leave is a disad ik GDI put out. however, while there is evidence for mercs or PMCs good, i think it is far more compelling that they are bad, UNLESS u somehow regulate PMCs to solve the negative impacts, then that could be a good advantage. However, to regulate them would be extra-t, so u would have to defend that.

AFGHANISTAN AFF: Have not seen this one...I'm willing to bet the "police" are just a part of the larger counternarcotics operation


i think camps have put out something like this but i haven't personally looked at it. i would think you would have to prove these "police" forces will actually be removed, because they probably serve multiple jobs and have more than just that one duty, which would make the aff have a T issue dealing with "reduce"

This is all unfortunate...I was hoping for that part of the topic to be live...But its hard to get a good advantage when removing police forces from Okinawa means that the soldiers there that rape women would have no military personnel "policing" their actions (more rape because no cops?), or removing police from Iraq, which may cause instability in urban centers...?


This problem probably comes from the fact that the authors of your evidence didn't consider EVERY scenario, including the one yo propose where police are removed but for whatever reason the military forces aren't. Or like the one where we leave but keep all our dogs there. Or even horses perhaps. I'm just saying that people don't always consider every thing that could possibly be done to try to deal with these issues, so there's your problem...

...wish it whould have been space or SE Asia!


Ditto on space- i think that could be epic! As for SE Asia, Japan and South Korea invite those debates in this resolution. Kinda.
  • 0

#14 MagnaArchos

MagnaArchos

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 28 posts
11
Good

Posted 20 August 2010 - 05:08 PM

the Counter-Narcotics aff defines itself as police presence to get out of T-substantial
It's not really that great, though- there's plenty of lit on why they're military presence
  • 0

#15 AdamM

AdamM

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
27
Good
  • Name:Adam
  • School:Wichita Trinity Academy -> K-State

Posted 01 September 2010 - 06:09 PM

i just prefer to think of mercenaries as police presence since they are hired and are not part of the US' military. but then again the types of presence (military, police) are defined by function, not by relation.


Mercenaries are used to supplment troops and in place of official soldiers, but i still consider them to be part of the military. I had a piece of evidence somewhere where the head of blackwater stated that he viewed his mercs. as part of the U.S. Military. If you have an official U.S. soldier fighting next to a blackwater merc., and their both fighting the same enemy, as well as both paid by the U.S. government, They are both U.S. Military.
At the Time of the Revolutionary War, England used armies of German Hessians throughout the world, to fortify their colonies, as well as fight against their enemies. George Washington and the Continintal Army faught an army of German Hessians, but we were not at war with Germany. The Hessians were part of the British Military.

Mercenaries are a main part of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a very good case for this year's topic, would be a mercenary reduction case.
  • 0

#16 TheSecretSquirrel

TheSecretSquirrel

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
-20
Bad

Posted 09 October 2010 - 01:58 AM

HTS. Notre Dame defines HTS as police presence to win T debates on presence
  • 0
During these times, telling truth is a revolutionary act.
-Nod to Orwell





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users