Jump to content
timmay

DADT Neg

Recommended Posts

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....
The most you can say for getting rid of DADT is that it would increase the POOL of applicants to serve in the Armed Forces. It would do nothing to increase the actual number of persons serving. The proposal isn't even effectually topical...

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.

 

Don't forget T barriers...

 

And T is the best way to beat the Kritikal DADT...

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....

 

There's lit saying that homophobes will leave in greater numbers than LGBT people can replace them; if you went to SDI, you'll probably recall the card. Find lit to support your position and I'll believe you. But until then, you can't meet increase (you don't) and unless you can prove that the number of LGBT entering the armed forces will OVERWHELMINGLY replace the number of homophobes leaving, you'll have a hard time proving substantially.

 

Finally, since all neg evidence proving non-topicality could also be used as solvency takeouts, you are clearly mixing burdens and that's bad for all the standard reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe no homophobes would actually leave, and if any did it would be a tiny amount?

 

That's not what any of the lit says, though.

 

Find me on MSN if you didn't have the neg stuff I cut already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this depends on two things,

1) your judge

2) your personal preferences

 

If your judge hates kritiks don't run them (or do run them if you want to make a point).

If you like kritiks then you should run them, a solid semi kritikal strat might include:

Intersectionality, Militarism, Gay Marriage Counterplan with n/b of patriarchy and security (the internals on the security net benefit are absolutely amazing)

If you want you could also throw in a topicality violation, queer theory, butler, etc.

On the disad/on case side you can neutralize the readiness advantage pretty easily (a lot of nutty conservatives write about this stuff), Intersectionality/Queer Theory can be used as an oncase argument against their homophobia advantage. Then you can run politix (if you can stand them), CMR, or maybe even spending (if you do it correctly).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want you could also throw in a topicality violation
"Throw in"? Honestly, why would you need anything other than a Topicality argument to beat this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both. Most teams will have sweet answers to queer theory etc, but the best way to spread a team is usually always oncase and offcase arguments.

1-2 Minutes T, a few awesome T violations for DADT.

3-4 Minutes Case, there's a ton of turns on this case.

2-4 Minutes offcase.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Throw in"? Honestly, why would you need anything other than a Topicality argument to beat this case?

He wasn't asking for topicality suggestions, he was asking for kritiks and on-case. I am well aware of the t violations against DADT (that's how I've beaten it almost every time I hit it).

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..

That could work, but i would argue that it is near IMPOSSIBLE to limit expressions of heterosexual identity. I mean, no letters from wives, no commenting on how hot X persyn is, and, the fact that withut identification of orientation, society assumes you hetero. We reference heterosexuality in everyday casual conversation, making it way harder to limit than homosexual orientation.

 

Also, if the AFF claims erasure, then that CP aint going to cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...