Jump to content
timmay

DADT Neg

Recommended Posts

Anyways.. could there be a CP or something that made it so no one in the military can express orientation publicly.. I mean it would solve for equality..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways.. could there be a CP or something that made it so no one in the military can express orientation publicly.. I mean it would solve for equality..

 

Of course, that wouldn't increase personnel serving, and it wouldn't solve for anything but equality in the affirmative case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A simple Google search allowed me to see that its either the

 

Risk Management Association

 

Rubber Manafacturers Association

 

Revolution in Military Affairs

 

Return Merchandise Authorization

 

Randolph-Macon Academy

 

Rocky Mountain APPA

 

Rubin Museum of Art

 

or the Recording Musicians Association...

 

cmon Tim...

 

or simply asking on c-x gets me the answer and this way someone else does the work for me. its like google search only i think i will call it, let some dumbass do the work for me.

 

also my name is Timm, not Tim or have you forgotten how to read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
right. so it would solve equality. and then RMA could be the net ben. not a bad strat.

 

But it doesn't solve all of the affirmative harms.. isn't that sort of the purpose of a counterplan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it doesn't solve all of the affirmative harms.. isn't that sort of the purpose of a counterplan?

i've won c/ps before without solving all harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure it does. have you seen the impact scenarios to RMA? it solves any military advantage, and then some. the one thing it probly can't solve is equality. so it's not a bad idea in my mind to run the cp to take equality out of the debate round, then go to town on all the intricacies of how rma disads pwn people's faces.

 

but yeah in all seriousness, i'm assuming other than equality the main advantages for dadt are like readiness or overstretch or heg.. sweet internals from RMA. sweeet internals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me what the actual argument of RMA is. Aswell as what Queer Theory is, and how does it function in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll take rma.

 

the thesis is that the military is undergoing something of a "defense transformation" or a "revolution in military affairs" [good search terms, hint hint] where they are shifting from a focus on overwhelming numbers of troops to a focus on less troops, but more specialized troops, that can operate more technologically advanced weaponry and/or other military use products [recon type things, etc.]. there's lit stating that increasing troop numbers causes a tradeoff in RMA research and development.

 

there are some crazy military type authors saying that these rma improvements solve basically everything under the sun. and then some [think, space!]. it's a fun disad, with pretty good evidence. the mainstream impact is terrorism--think about it, specialized troops are definitely more capable of tracking down nutjobs hiding in caves than standard battalions.

 

oh, and it functions as a disadvantage. nothing weird about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDI 3-week Samuels/Topp put out a core. It's decent. It's the one with the F-22 on the index page. I've heard some friends who went to JDI talk vaguely about RMA, so perhaps there's a file there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

other camps that have put an rma or dt file out are wichita state, MNDI 7 week, MNDI [whatever isn't 7 week], and ENDI scholars.

 

there is an absolute ton of stuff that those camps didn't cover though. feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget T: fx and substantially come to mind. I've heard that several DADT rounds were actually won on T.
Word. Getting rid of DADT will not increase the number of persons serving in the armed forces, directly OR indirectly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn--?

 

DADT discharges include highly trained individuals deemed 'critical to the war on terror,' many of whom are specialized language experts. By discharging them, we are not only losing those specialized individuals needed to complete the defense transformation but it leads to loose recruiting standards causing large numbers of unfit soldiers to join..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh that doesn't really answer the "you aren't topical" argument, for one. that turn would indicate that more people are recruited in the status quo than post plan. that doesn't look good on the T flow.

 

you're in a double bind. lockesdonkey made a hell of a point with that post earlier. the specialized individuals turn on RMA isn't a bad idea, but you'd really need a card to sell it--also, good luck proving that what rummy has in mind with the RMA's specialized units is language experts. a lot of negs will argue the link based on a simple zero-sum tradeoff between force size and R&D for RMA. plus, most link cards from camp files aren't specific to specialized soldiers--they're technology based weaponry, because that's what the crazy military authors write about. but good luck with researching that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I wasn't turning the topicality argument, I was talking about the RMA argument..

 

Im confused.. is it arguing that we need a smaller better military, or just technology..

 

Also WSU released a defense transformation file with aff answers including evidence against uniqueness, link, impacts and transformation bad stuff..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah yeah. sure, there are answers, and i've got a copy of the wsu stuff. but none of it is unbeatable from the neg's perspective. the specialized individuals argument has the potential to be a compelling one in my opinion--it's a great analytical mitigator, but in order to really claim a turn off it or in order for it to be the disad winner you probably want it to be, then try to cut a link turn story that actually involves the position that these individuals hold and the RMA rumsfeld is trying to get going. if the DoD called these positions critical to the WOT, that sounds like a hell of a start. and if the impact to RMA that the negative reads is the WOT [which is one of the more popular impact scenarios] then i would definitely include that in the frontline. but to link turn RMA completely you need a card showing this position is key to the RMA itself.

 

you ask if it argues we need a smaller better military or just technology, and really you can go either way on that question. most link stories from negatives will indicate that in order to get the technology and the true RMA, we need to minimize the troops--or, at the very least, leave the balance how it is now. in a sense, we need a balance between troop size and R&D for the RMA. neg evidence is going to indicate that substantial increases in people in the armed forces are going to ruin that balance.

 

and i know you were talking about turning the RMA argument, but the strat illustrated by Lockesdonkey would screw you if you made that argument: it would bite your T responses and basically provide an abuse story in the round for the negative to win off T. not a very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good article on how DADT increases soldiers http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/ReportFindsLiftingGayBanCouldEase.html

 

 

a possible spending link

 

and I've seen literature, though don't have any cut on how repealing DADT it wouldn't result in an increase in recruiting based on polls.http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/DuffyExploresCastroFamilyCenterPlan.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hope I face some of you guys on the NEG when i'm running DADT on the AFF

 

Would you like to contribute to the thread? Lets hear some of your arguments..

 

Also.. did you join cross-x just to say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its important for people going both AFF and NEG (pretty much everyone) on DADT to read the actual U.S. Code.. So heres the link:

 

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=64484811975+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

Share what you find interesting.. or what could be a possible aff or neg argument..

 

What I saw was this:

(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (B) shall be

construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for

separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense

that--

(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the

purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest

of the armed forces.

 

You would think that the armed forces would want to keep the language experts..

 

Also..

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or

solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there

are further findings, made and approved in accordance with

procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has

demonstrated that--

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and

customary behavior;

 

Could this be a heteronormativity link. Seems like they aren't really afraid of all homosexual acts, just people who are actually gay.. So pretty much straight people who ruin unit cohesion by doing something gay aren't doing anything wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt be suprised if this case didnt become the biggest or most popular case this year. On topic though, i would not rule out a foucault critiique my lab cut a specific shell to DADT and they evidence is very good, and i think it makes for a very strong convining argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't run XO against DADT unless you want to lose quickly.

 

also, its got T problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DADT might turn out to be this year's Extraordinary Rendition (which my teams beat on Topicality every time they faced it last year)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, DADT is at least mildly topical, to the extent that there would be some new recruits, ones that would make up for the negative backlash....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...