Jump to content
Banana

WIC Neg Strat

Recommended Posts

What are some of the negative strategies that will pop up next year against the Women In Combat affirmative? There's no doubt that militarism will be popular, UTNIF and SDI (and others, no doubt) have put out some very specific military link stories that I think are pretty strong. Beyond that, what's the oncase debate going to look like? Major Off?

 

1) Militarism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

feminism bad

harms/inh - there aren't really any 'front lines' in Iraq.

militarism will be pretty sweet

nonviolence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FX topicality.

agent counterplan most likely.

there are tons of specific solvency turns.

Butler Gender K, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feminism bad

 

I'd even go with feminism good too. The plan is bad for feminists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a really sexist thing to say. Elaborate.

 

I didn't mean to be, but some of the arguments would work like this:

 

Armed forces are generally antithetical to feminism in nature.

The plan creates an extreme of masculinity in all aspects of society, increasing violence and what have you.

It denies any examination of what is truly desirable for women and society in general under the guise of equality.

Striving for this equality tradesoff with better alternatives.

The plan splinters the feminist movement.

It masks militarism which kills feminism...

 

Those type of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about case turns, bud. Your feminism impacts for those arguments you give would be in the 1AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, the thread asked for both off case and on case args... it could be like a hybrid of both. Put it on case with an alt maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the literature uses the words gender and sex intechangeably (sp?), which provides a link to essentialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UTEP wrote a pretty good sexual harrassment frontline and extensions and military readiness neg, against wic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meh, the thread asked for both off case and on case args... it could be like a hybrid of both. Put it on case with an alt maybe

 

that would be a K and probly function better "off case"

 

what are some of the authors for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats true

 

though there is some good literature that no allowing womyn in combat what leads to there being oppresed and harrased outside the military

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People do the whole "womyn" genderization thing as a sort of critical advantage right? So what would be the K against a plan that didn't do that and just used women the whole time.. Does anyone have this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you could run a gendered language kritik, spinning a story about how having the word "men" in women onyl perpetuates the male dominance over women because even in their title, they have to ahve the support of the male. I'm probably over simplifying the argument but i've never been real keen on the whole langauge kritiks (they're stupid) but i would suggest doing a lot if impact work and good luck getting a solid alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T Increase--plan doesn't increase the number of persons it just recategorizes people so they can do something different.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it works the same way as incentives (its a topical i dea, get over it) the idea being that by lifting the combat exlcusion ban, more women will join the military. I'm sure there are beter topicalit argments out there than -increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like DADT, "substantially": Even though there are certainly more women than homosexuals in the general population, who's to say that women will be attracted to this? For that matter, could the number who are attracted could actually solve for any of the non-kritikal advantages like readiness, overstretch, and heg, if they claim any--and they ALL claim these advantages. Also mixing burdens==bad; already, we're looking to solvency (can it fix ready/over/heg?) to determine T (is it substantial?).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it works the same way as incentives (its a topical i dea, get over it) the idea being that by lifting the combat exlcusion ban, more women will join the military. I'm sure there are beter topicalit argments out there than -increase.

 

The argument here is this: are there any women out there who refuse to join the army because they can't get assigned to the most dangerous duty it offers? It doesn't make any sense, and without strong evidence to the contrary, I fail to see how the case is topical on increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there are several causalities you can claim for your topicality.

 

One, get it through your sexual abuse advantage. There's some good cards out there for that

 

Two, straight up exclusion is uninviting.

 

Three, you might be able to get it through your fem advantage. I've been looking through some of the lit as far as gender norms and such in the military, and I think you could claim that de-masculinizing the military by formally ending all exclusion would cause tidal waves of women to enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With WiC as with DADT: The good ol'fashioned T-substantially increase/RMA double-bind. Either you increase--onface or not--and fuck the RMA over, or you don't increase, at least not substantially, and you're just not topical.

 

However, beware that RMA and militarism are inherently mutually exclusive arguments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...