Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CanadianGoldfish

Great Aff: Looking for loopholes

Recommended Posts

Ok our plan is to create a rapid reaction force through the UN. Our troops come from the NATO RDF and the EUs RDF, taking all the benefits from our CPs. This helps avoid the Iraq overstretch DA. Our funding comes from the privatization of NASA which is about 80 billion over the next 5 years, this helps avoid the Econ DA. Is there anything wrong? any way to make it better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our troops come from the NATO RDF and the EUs RDF, taking all the benefits from our CPs

 

Do you have proof that countries will take their troops away from the EU and Nato? It seems that if you don't, you would have to fiat which would open you up to a huge theory debate.

 

Our funding comes from the privateization of NASA

 

that would never happen........fiat implies that it at least be practical, and unless you have evidence countering that it would never happen, funding through normal means with a good a2 file would be much better

 

Also, any UN Bad evidence, a da saying that you are weakening the EU and Nato, and all of the K's that can be run against a regular RRF case would be neg strategies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok our plan is to create a rapid reaction force through the UN. Our troops come from the NATO RDF and the EUs RDF, taking all the benefits from our CPs. This helps avoid the Iraq overstretch DA. Our funding comes from the privateization of NASA which is about 80 billion over the next 5 years, this helps avoid the Econ DA. Is there anything wrong? any way to make it better?

 

T -- USFG (with an XTra standard)

PKO Spec

OSpec

NASA Good turns out the ass (Specifically regarding asteroids)

Capitalism

Case stuff, generic UN & RDF suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does this work, do you fiat nato and eu give troops or does plan have the usfg put political pressure on them to do so or something else. Anyway, it seems like you have a pretty big fiat/T problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article 43..look it up...

 

oh, and this plan has been written...at a camp ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have cards saying that the EU and Nato are will to give troops to the UN and will mutually benefit from one another so fiats out and I believe we have extra T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how exactly could I state the plan with out it being extra topical? Could I just say normal means and if they ask say im getting funding from privatizing NASA? and troops from willing EU and NATO?

:confused: Or would it still be extra topical because Im claiming benefits from using NASA funds, and EU and NATO troops :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how exactly could I state the plan with out it being extra topical? Could I just say normal means and if they ask say im getting funding from privatizing NASA? and troops from willing EU and NATO?

:confused: Or would it still be extra topical because Im claiming benefits from using NASA funds, and EU and NATO troops :confused:

wow. finally something to run "its" T against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how exactly could I state the plan with out it being extra topical? Could I just say normal means and if they ask say im getting funding from privatizing NASA? and troops from willing EU and NATO?

 

you are missing the point of this affirmative. it is not to make all the people in NATO or the EU give their troops to the. it should be about article 43. the US should shift its commitment of troops from NATO to the UN. besides, NATO cant even go about doing a mission or PKO without going through the UN or getting permission from the UN. THIS WAS ALREADY PUT OUT AT A CAMP! IM and ill tell u more about it if u want..ro0t115

 

btw...it will always be xtra T ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im the guy who wrote this case i wrote basically everything on the back of a spanish worksheet in english(who needs english?) and it took a while. yes there are many plan planks that are extra-t but i think all of u just dont get it cuz its just that i have a/t to everything ive seen except extra-t in one round cuz it got stole. anyway the whole deal is a RRF not a PKO so of course that could be a T but the thing with NATO having to go through the U.N isnt true because NATO just opened their new RRF to operations on Oct.13(http://www.nato.int) check for it. The idea would be to lease(rent basically) their RRF for large scale conflicts with our U.N RRF. THe EU thing is just my partner addin stuff on to it but the EU will have a full out ARMY!!!! by 07 so that could still work on a political support basis. :confused: Plus we say that we annex SHIRBRIG as the basic infrastucture of the UNRRF but we have to have a/t SHIRBRIG sucks cuz our solvency sourse hates it. lol anyway the NASA stuff is only weak in the budget delicate area of which no one in georgia seems to have heard of at least in the private school division of which i am in. In fact ive only heard the word plank for the NASA part once!!! and that was a team from south carolina. this plan wins easy vs. dumb teams and u can win it vs. good teams if u just get ur extra-t and UN good stuff. OF cource when they say UN sucks or w/e and be like.... WE HAVE TO USE THE U.N so it dont matter but of course i answer the args still. If yall have sum ques or need to know sum ev sites just email me dw4trojan@aol.com

anyway....

This case will get me through the year cuz it seems no one answers my infastructure breakdown=aids etc.=extinction

if u want RDF ev just google "langille" hes a good solvency arg and if u need sum SHIRBRIG sucks or stuff liek that (_8^(|)

I LOVE GUNTER !!!!

TSA DEBATE IS THE PLACE TO BE

 

im not close minded liberals are just wrong

liberal:a person so open-minded their brains have fallen out

and by the way bush won this time get over it

HILLARY IN 08' (over my dead body)

CONDI IN 08'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiat means immediate passage; NASA privitization is in the future, u get no funding or ur abusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im the guy who wrote this case i wrote basically everything on the back of a spanish worksheet in english

 

this was put out at Z's last summer...you arent the one who wrote this camp...even though your version is different, it is not, IMO, as good or as topical as the other one. im not insulting you or anything, and i dont mean to be mean, but you all should try and get your hands on this case if you are that interested. its the NATO aff from Z's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive heard a camp put it out but i came up with it before i heard of that and from what i heard its not the same at all, my plan leases out the NATO RRF with money comming from the whole NASA thing which my partner left out that all that money we would be using would be put in a fund only for the UNRRF which really dosnt matter but still, i really dont need it in all honesty our team has like 2 tourneys left and there is no real competition round here so no need to waste my money, lol, thanx for the heads up though, i figured id get called a moron or sumtin but thats probably commin later

 

anybody wanna help me on gettin a little PKO spec A/T for sumtin like this cuz mine isnt so good???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont think that NATO will be the main thing cuz in my case its not which i think is causing sum confusion. the troops will be based on the SHIRBRIG model of volunteers plus a rotation of troops that stay in the force for a certain period of time so its no just NATO troops

 

if anyone wants to help just post away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have all this crap that say we must privatise NASA now and stuff like that its actually about sum idea that NASA $ should go towards defence or sumthin but i just didnt put it in the card so who cares and i dout yall get that all of u are much better than most of the ppl we go against could dream to be other than stratford. :Bow all hail the great and powerful stratford

TSA DEBATE

Condi in 08'

I love u gunter!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother arguing extra-T when a Rapid Deployment Force would, by its very nature, NOT meet the UN's own definition of a peacekeeping operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i said in my last few posts i knew that it wasnt topical i was saying that i get extra-t run on me because of all the extra crap in my case

I LOVE GUNTER!!!

Condi in 08'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone got any comments i added all those planks for the novice at my school but my varsity plan is just passing the mcgovern bill (RDF BILL) and i made it a funding case with the privatisation of NASA stuff which u can find articles saying its good and is needed and they actually make sence but there is the possibility of the type of impacts like in the social security reform da in evazon sayin space exploration is key to human survival but then i have all the private sector space progress and i just say it would work better cuz of xy&z, and i got the extra t covered

 

wonderin if anyone would like sum more info or wanna help me out with sum ideas :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it bother anyone that case supports NASA PRIVATIZATION? I would hope that all of you, somewhere outside of a debate context, have just a little compassion and can realize that forcing someone to pay an extraordinarily high price to...oh, let's say turn on their faucet (as was the case in Bolivia) is a decontstruction of basic human security. Also, I would reccomend NOT using NATO. In terms of debate, you are going to hit some tough and true ev. about the atrociously bloody acts of the United States and NATO in Kosovo. It almost seems that you are trying to make a policy that advocates the Balkanization of the entire globe which would (obviously) have terrible implications. If you don't know too much about NATO, DO THE RESEARCH. They do some fucked up shit. In terms of the privatization, you simply cannot argue FOR privatizing. It's a process that has lead to impacts worse than "nuke war" such as the economic genocide of the entire 3rd world, amongst others

Think about your case outside of 'debate.' Think about what you truly believe in, and from there structure your position. If you really think that supporting a group that bombed Yugoslavia to save Yugoslavia, or that allowing for the world to fall an uncontrollable elitest tyrrany is good, then go for it. But put some general thought into what you are doing, and worry not about the ballot, but about the truth. Because, let's be honest, 40 years from now a debate trophy gives you the same feeling as the guy pumping gas who won states in 1982. But knowing that you tried your hardest to raise awareness and create true change about something that you believe in is infinitely more rewarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...