Jump to content
demonlampshade

Fire Corp

Recommended Posts

I cut Fire Corps for our team and I thought it was rather stupid. 0-0

 

As far as a neg strat... some of the case stuff I found in some camp files was realy awesome. You could say case stuff liiiike...

 

- Wildfires key to environment (I saw some cards that mentioned something about how wildfires kill vegetation which is good because newer, better vegetation grows back and more animals can live in a better environment and such. They also talk about how fires are good for bear habitats and stuff. It can be a turn to their environment impact, which will usually always be there.)

- Wildfires inevitable. (Even if we increase Fire Corps, can people seriously stop a huge, raging fire successfully? Not really. Even with bajillions of people it takes forever and kills a bunch of crap.)

- Alternate causality: Global warming. Wooo.

 

There's more, but I can't think of it.

 

As far as off-case goes, States CP is fun. There is cool evidence saying only states can handle wildfires because they know the area better and whatnot... and use federalism as a net benefit.

 

Or straight-up DAs and stuff... spending always works. Politics. Trade-off DAs. You know. The general stuff. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of DAs that link hardcore to Fire Corps. Blah.

 

Personally, I don't think it will be that popular of a case and I'm not too worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um yea all that neg stuff goes aff, the aff is about prescribed fires. The alt cause stuff is probably the only useful thing for the negative stuff, most of the aff evidence will subsume it though.

 

States cp is a horrible idea there are hundreds of cards that says fed action is key. plus you would have to lopez to solve

 

oh man, you beat me to it.

 

it's true, saying fires good isn't an answer, that's basically what the aff does, controlled/prescribed fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP - US Fish and Wildlife will do plan by themselves.

 

I saw this ran with a tix NB, which had the most tremendously awesome link-out I've ever seen. It was basically a page of reasons why Americans don't give a shit about conservation and how USF&W is the most ignored government agency in history, even when it revamps thing.

 

There's also good ev. that they've got experienced professionals to deal with wildfires/better than random A.C. volunteers.

 

I think it's a good strat because if you win the tix debate, you win the round, and you can use the CP as a test of theory under a Sub=w/o material quals argument. If the aff. has nothing against small agent CP's like this, and claim that they're infinitely unpredictable, you can extend their theory to your own T argument to show how they're infinitely unpredictable as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternate Causality really does deal this case a blow.

 

T - In=Throughout is alright, I suppose, although it's kind of a disgused significance arguement. T- Substantial is an old favorite as well.

 

On-case evidence is good for this stuff. If you do 2-3 minutes of on-case on their advantages and kinda haphazard solvency, you'll be fine.

 

The Fish and Wildlife CP is dynamic as well (good suggestion, you had beat me to it). The 'Tix net benefit is good, but the solvency evidence is the icing on the cake. The only thing you might effectively face is a perm, but then again, if you've run states you know how to fight a do-both permutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in which of the 6 topic areas does this aff increase? and is it conscription, incentives, removal of barriers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in which of the 6 topic areas does this aff increase? and is it conscription, incentives, removal of barriers?

 

it's a program part of citizen Corps.

 

and incentives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone have any evidence that can be used against the "pensions=recruitment" evidence.. the entire aff file revolves around this one card so if the neg was prepared to debate it, they could easily win..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does anyone have any evidence that can be used against the "pensions=recruitment" evidence.. the entire aff file revolves around this one card so if the neg was prepared to debate it, they could easily win..

 

pensions is half of the plan.

 

and the card really sucks. just read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that on a policymaking scale, still getting people is good.

 

Also, the card seems to indict all Agent CP's as being fiscally irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh man, you beat me to it.

 

it's true, saying fires good isn't an answer, that's basically what the aff does, controlled/prescribed fires.

 

There is also evidence saying presribed fires doesn't have the same effect, however.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always been one thing that I've wondered about with this case, or at least the one put out by SDI. Exactly how does any fire corps case claim any solvency to the prescribed burning advantage? The only way I could see a plain having any solvency for it would be through two different ways.

 

First, the aff could claim that in the sq Fire Corps doesn't have enough resources/personnel/whatever and are unable to do prescribed burning or something of that nature. The only problem with this is that I've yet to see a piece of evidence that actually says that the Fire Corps actually does any prescribed burning, let alone that they are unable to do so in the sq.

 

The second way, would be to claim that firefighters are currently overstretched which prevents them from doing these prescribed burns. I've actually seen some good cards talking about how Fire Corps helps with overstretch, but I've once again, yet to see any ev that talks about how firefighters are so overstretched that they can't do these burns.

 

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious, but how does Fire Corps have any solvency when it comes to increasing the number of prescribed burns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is crap. The United States forest service as well as the BLM (both are the leaders in prescribed burning) would never allow this. Under current laws, these people are only allowed to like hand out literature. They are not allowed on or anywhere near a fire. The whole concept of putting them on one is crazy. The reason they are not allowed on a fire now is that liability is too high. To be placed on a fire one would have to go through all the training and what not. These people will never see a fire. I would say run something like an econ DA on it or something if your opponent somehow has worked out all the other crap that one would have to get through in order to implement plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...

 

Wouldn't it be possible that prescribed fires risk growing out of control, destroying environment etc etc?

 

Anyone have cites on this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just respond that that is emperically denied. Maybe a few instances, but not anything regular or truly damaging compared to the raginf fires that PF are supposed to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a regular thing, but it certainly has happened. I believe in 2000 Yellowstone National Park prescribed burn grew out of control and destroyed a lot. Thats one example... look it up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone thought about a deep eco K? something about how humans trying to fix the enviroment is wrong etc etc? also, if anyone has anything close to an enviromental science class i think you might be able to beat them on analytics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really.. i took an enviro class and other than some alternate causality arguments the case is environmentally logical..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's grossly extra T. No evidence says that with more volunteers they would naturally go and do prescribed fires. In fact, I've seen prescribed fires in some plan texts. It's one thing to increase people, but then to assign them tasks is bunk. Then I could say, "Do a draft, oh, and we'll invade Mozambique as part of plan too with those people"

 

Umm, have any of you people thought of doing a "real" (not a PIC) c-p against this? They only solve for environmental harms, there are LOTZ of things that can solve for those same harms. I'm not givin mine away, unless you had somethin decent to trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone thought about a deep eco K? something about how humans trying to fix the enviroment is wrong etc etc? also, if anyone has anything close to an enviromental science class i think you might be able to beat them on analytics

 

There is some cool baudrillard stuff that might work on this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...