Jump to content
TempusMoriendi

WIC - Awful Case?

Recommended Posts

I have been looking into this and there is so much negative evidence on the web and no real affirmative evidence - has anyone else noticed this? It's completely kritical and Policy Judges - Stock issue judges - will dislike it, right? Plus, there is no increase right? No figure on more females joining, UNLIKE DADT which at least says 41,000 people will join.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been looking into this and there is so much negative evidence on the web and no real affirmative evidence - has anyone else noticed this? It's completely kritical and Policy Judges - Stock issue judges - will dislike it, right? Plus, there is no increase right? No figure on more females joining, UNLIKE DADT which at least says 41,000 people will join.

 

1) Not topical- If anything, is HUGELY F/X, and that is assuming that more women will join. Its not even allowing women to join the army, its only allowing them to go into combat zones.

2) No inherency- everywhere in Iraq is a combat zone, there are "insurgents" everywhere

3) Uses the military- thus links to adventurism DA's, ptx DA's, spending DA's, about every k imaginable, and a ton of cp's.

4) No solvency- allowing womyn to serve in the military is definitely not going to undue HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS of patriarchy

 

There are many other reasons why it's a bad case, but these are a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too funny, all these things can be said about any other case.

 

Except for the patriarchy arguments and the increase t, both of which happen to be very strong arguments on case....

 

Oh, and the inherency arguments. Those too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm just going to say that i'm not convinced a women in combat aff w/ discrimination and patriarchy advantages etc. is very good- but i will say that people are too quick to discredit it and i'm also not even close to convinced by this discussion so far that it is a BAD aff

 

1) Not topical- If anything, is HUGELY F/X, and that is assuming that more women will join. Its not even allowing women to join the army, its only allowing them to go into combat zones.

 

i'm not really going to answer this- whether or not fx t is legit or not is a huge debate that i dont feel like dedicating any more time to than i have to. but i would expect whoever is reading this affirmative will most likely be ready to go on that debate. furthermore, this argument is very good in the context of this threads discussion- the question is whether or not WIC is an "Awful case"- if you are planning on discrediting every affirmative on this topic as "awful" because it is effectually topical, then you aren't left which very much.

 

2) No inherency- everywhere in Iraq is a combat zone, there are "insurgents" everywhere.

 

this is a particularly bad argument- just because everywhere in iraq is a combat zone, doesn't mean there aren't still laws prohibiting women from participating in combat- if anything, this argument proves how ridiculous that prohibition is because women are in combat zones in the status quo- but its illegal and the subordination that comes from the law and the inability to use their combat experience in places like congress etc. continues- means only risk of offense is for the aff

 

3) Uses the military- thus links to adventurism DA's, ptx DA's, spending DA's, about every k imaginable, and a ton of cp's.

 

i'm kind of curious as to how allowing women in combat results in adventurism? or spends enough money to COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY?

 

while, you may have your links that doesnt mean the link turn literature doesn't exist or doesnt provide for equally as good of cards.

 

still, none of these disads prove why women in combat is an "awful" case- give me a break- just because an aff spends money doesnt mean it is awful.

 

4) No solvency- allowing womyn to serve in the military is definitely not going to undue HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS of patriarchy

 

sure, but if the aff wins they solve some and that the starting point for political discussions should be with patriarchy- then that argument doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not really going to answer this- whether or not fx t is legit or not is a huge debate that i dont feel like dedicating any more time to than i have to. but i would expect whoever is reading this affirmative will most likely be ready to go on that debate. furthermore, this argument is very good in the context of this threads discussion- the question is whether or not WIC is an "Awful case"- if you are planning on discrediting every affirmative on this topic as "awful" because it is effectually topical, then you aren't left which very much.

 

First of all, there is not very good quality evidence that women will even want to join if WICA laws are repealed. Second of all, WICA is much more F/X than other plans. Most plans involve funding= more volounteers. DADT is repeal laws=gays will want to join. WICA does not have any direct solvency at all. If women want to join the army, why don't they join right now? Arguing that they don't want to join because they can't fight in dangerous areas is a really bad solvency mechanism, at least in my opinion.

 

this is a particularly bad argument- just because everywhere in iraq is a combat zone, doesn't mean there aren't still laws prohibiting women from participating in combat- if anything, this argument proves how ridiculous that prohibition is because women are in combat zones in the status quo- but its illegal and the subordination that comes from the law and the inability to use their combat experience in places like congress etc. continues- means only risk of offense is for the aff.

 

This arguement is mainly for the readiness advantage. I admit that this has nothing to do w/ getting rid of patriarchy, but legally allowing womyn to do something that they technically already do will not substantially increase readiness

 

i'm kind of curious as to how allowing women in combat results in adventurism?

Do you even know what adventurism is? The aff can only claim solvency be increasing the number of people in the armed forces. Adventurism says that increasing # of persons in armed forces= Bush attacks more countries.

 

or spends enough money to COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY?.

The military costs money, in case you didnt know.

 

while, you may have your links that doesnt mean the link turn literature doesn't exist or doesnt provide for equally as good of cards.

still, none of these disads prove why women in combat is an "awful" case- give me a break- just because an aff spends money doesnt mean it is awful.

I'm not saying that WICA links harder than DADT, Draft, etc I'm saying that it does link by increasing military. Link turns are still possible, I'm simply saying that it does link.

 

sure, but if the aff wins they solve some and that the starting point for political discussions should be with patriarchy- then that argument doesn't matter.

This is an ok argument, and I'm not saying that the aff doesnt solve for any patriarchy, I'm saying that they can't solve for a majority of the patriarchy in America, let alone the world.

 

 

 

To sum up, WICA has worse solvency than other cases, is not topical, and links harder to more offcase arguments

You can still run it, these are just some arguments that you will most likely come up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence isnt half bad out there for the increase. We cut some stuff at camp that says the ban on women in combat has been justification for tighter recruitment restrictions on women in general. Meaning the aff doesnt just allow more women in combat, they allow more women to join the military overall. Also there's one article that talks about how last year the army went to congress and asked them to repeal the combat exclusion in order to fill recruitment needs and get more women in the military. Which, to me, is a pretty big hint that qualified people think that more women would join. And Danny's right, if a good team is running this case, they're going to be pretty damn ready to debate T-FX every single round along with "you dont reverse all patriarchy,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending women out to combat zones to kill people in the military doesn't seem like a good way to solve the patriarchy in the military that "leads" to killing in the first place. The patriarchy solvency is illogical, and most of it sucks when put up next to authors who are against women in combat. If the military is such a terrible institution, why would you want to expose even more people to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sending women out to combat zones to kill people in the military doesn't seem like a good way to solve the patriarchy in the military that "leads" to killing in the first place. The patriarchy solvency is illogical, and most of it sucks when put up next to authors who are against women in combat. If the military is such a terrible institution, why would you want to expose even more people to it?

 

This is where a female Peter Tatchell would come in handy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if you run Adventurism or a Trade Off DA then you automatically lose on Substantial - since there are no numbers. Because, first you say no one will join, but then you say enough people will join to invade Iran? hahaha?

 

"Hypocrisy is Worse than Ignorance"

 

I could use those cards saying that women will join if the combat exclusion is repealed, how manyh did the cards say? do you have a non kritical aff? If so, I'll trade a ton, I have huge DADT files, like hundreds of pages, and I have a 50 page homemade file, along with tons of neg evi and kritiques and answers to them .

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, if you run Adventurism or a Trade Off DA then you automatically lose on Substantial - since there are no numbers. Because, first you say no one will join, but then you say enough people will join to invade Iran? hahaha?

 

"Hypocrisy is Worse than Ignorance"

 

I could use those cards saying that women will join if the combat exclusion is repealed, how manyh did the cards say? do you have a non kritical aff? If so, I'll trade a ton, I have huge DADT files, like hundreds of pages, and I have a 50 page homemade file, along with tons of neg evi and kritiques and answers to them .

 

Its a way of proving that they are unsubstantial. For example, if you run a straight up adventurism DA, than they can say that they aren't substantial enough to cause adventurism. If you run substantial violation, they will say, w/m, we are substantial, and there's no way to vote them down.

If you run adventurism and t-substantial, they will most often have to a) concede they are substantial and therefore link to adventurism or B) are unsubstantial, and don't link to adventurism but are also non-topical.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personaly cut and found many pieces of inherency evidence for WIC that is far better then the same type of DADT evidence. Futhermore there are multiple authors who write about how WIC means people cant/dont join, and upon its repeal a sigifnicant number of women would join as a result.

 

 

 

You bullshiting about stuff that is clearly not true gets boring, we get it, you don't like case. This dosent mean its a bad case, everything you say i could literaly insert a diffirent aff name and it would make as much sense. This is true even for the "unsolvable" patrarchy claims. Futhermore your ignorance of what advantage areas are possible under this affirmative kind of shows how silly your being, for example a gender advantage is hotshit compared to the same lit on fem or patriarchy.

 

 

 

From your name it seems like your more interested in playing with yourself anyhow, i wont bother to post anymore.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have personaly cut and found many pieces of inherency evidence for WIC that is far better then the same type of DADT evidence. Futhermore there are multiple authors who write about how WIC means people cant/dont join, and upon its repeal a sigifnicant number of women would join as a result.

You bullshiting about stuff that is clearly not true gets boring, we get it, you don't like case. This dosent mean its a bad case, everything you say i could literaly insert a diffirent aff name and it would make as much sense. This is true even for the "unsolvable" patrarchy claims. Futhermore your ignorance of what advantage areas are possible under this affirmative kind of shows how silly your being, for example a gender advantage is hotshit compared to the same lit on fem or patriarchy.

From your name it seems like your more interested in playing with yourself anyhow, i wont bother to post anymore.

 

 

Ok, you are an idiot. DADT actually bans glbt from entering the military. WIC just doesnt allow women to fight in combat areas. There is a huge difference between being allowed to serve in general and being allowed to serve in a certain area of combat. There is evidence out there supporting your claim, I'm not denying this, but the fact that 40,000 women are going to join the army just so that they can fight in dangerous areas THAT THEY ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO FIGHT IN is not the greatest evidence.

As to your post about me no knowing enough about this topic, I cut a WICA file at camp. The two advantages in the file (the two best in my opinion) were readiness and patriarchy.

 

To top it all off, the original poster asked for discussion on why the aff is bad. Trying to justify why it is good does not belong in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, there is not very good quality evidence that women will even want to join if WICA laws are repealed. Second of all, WICA is much more F/X than other plans. Most plans involve funding= more volounteers. DADT is repeal laws=gays will want to join. WICA does not have any direct solvency at all. If women want to join the army, why don't they join right now? Arguing that they don't want to join because they can't fight in dangerous areas is a really bad solvency mechanism, at least in my opinion.

 

Cody answered this. i'm not going to waste my time repeating what he said.

 

 

Do you even know what adventurism is? The aff can only claim solvency be increasing the number of people in the armed forces. Adventurism says that increasing # of persons in armed forces= Bush attacks more countries.

 

 

The military costs money, in case you didnt know.

 

no offense but i found these arguments particularly embarassing for you. sure, i know what adventurism is. but, i think the question is, do you know what a specific link is? The fact the military costs money is not an argument. That doesnt mean the plan will spend enough to collapse the entire economy. and i think both of this disads are in pretty rough shape considering the Army increased their end strength with the 2007 Defense Authorization Act. Means the disads are non-unique and empirically denied. But i think the specificity of the evidence as far as the aff link turns will be the coup de grace for you if this is your strategy. Your generic cards aren't very persuasive vs. their evidence discussing how if women are allowed in combat they will gain more authority to speak out against military invasions because people will combat experience are generally regarded as the experts.

 

 

 

Sending women out to combat zones to kill people in the military doesn't seem like a good way to solve the patriarchy in the military that "leads" to killing in the first place. The patriarchy solvency is illogical, and most of it sucks when put up next to authors who are against women in combat. If the military is such a terrible institution, why would you want to expose even more people to it?

 

This is answered above. Plus, the affirmative would most likely argue that the status quo is much worse- we should engage structures to change them. If we just stopped trying to change the military, it would probably just continue to get more violent and more violent. This is at least a logical argument you make, and i may agree with you, but i completely disagree with you about the quality of evidence. Authors who are against women in combat? Congratulations, Phyllis Schafly wrote some unwarranted trash about how women belong in the kitchen, but there are also shelves of books written about the glass ceiling that is placed above womens heads that prevents them from advancing in the military and in society because of the combat exclusion.

 

 

 

So at the end of the day, when answering the question "Is WIC an awful case?". I say, Amazing? Probably not. Awful? No. The fact this aff links to a few disads and is effectually topical is not a reason to dismiss it as awful.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cody answered this. i'm not going to waste my time repeating what he said.

 

No. He didn't. He said that some women are rejected by the army. He did not say that 40,000 women are rejected. Read the post.

 

no offense but i found these arguments particularly embarassing for you. sure, i know what adventurism is. but, i think the question is, do you know what a specific link is? The fact the military costs money is not an argument. That doesnt mean the plan will spend enough to collapse the entire economy.

 

The link to adventurism is not funding. You are combining two of my posts and taking them out of context. You asked how WICA link to adventurism- as stated in a previous post, more troops= Bush able to attack more countries.

No, spending a few dollars will not collapse the economy. Yes, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per person on 40,000 will hurt the economy. Will it, in actuality, cause nuclear war? No. But neither will the majority of arguments made in debate. However, this is one of the biggest arguments this year.

 

and i think both of this disads are in pretty rough shape considering the Army increased their end strength with the 2007 Defense Authorization Act. Means the disads are non-unique and empirically denied. But i think the specificity of the evidence as far as the aff link turns will be the coup de grace for you if this is your strategy. Your generic "overstretch prevents iran strikes!!!!!!" cards aren't very persuasive vs. their evidence discussing how if women are allowed in combat they will gain more authority to speak out against military invasions because people will combat experience are generally regarded as the experts.

 

Fine. Make this argument in the round. This is not a debate. However, since you brought the "debate" up, I will answer it as such.

1. Putting women in combat increase patriarchy by making women complacent with militarism. Burke 2006. Making women complacent with militarism leads to wide scale patriarchy. Burke 2006

2. Lesbian baiting turn

3. Women will be raped by the enemy if they are placed in combat zones. Gerber 1998

4. Alt causality- patriarchy in military is caused primarily by DADT. Rost 2004

5. Allowing women to serve in military deafens us to the oppression women face in society. Kirkwood 2003

There are hundreds of such arguements that can be made against the patriarchy advantage. No, not all of these will win the round. No, they are not perfect arguments. However, when the judge is comparing the round, and the aff has one solvency arguement that is weak at best, and the neg has ten turns as to why repealing WICA increase patriarchy, who do you think the judge is going to vote up?

 

So at the end of the day, when answering the question "Is WIC an awful case?". I say, Amazing? Probably not. Awful? No. The fact this aff links to a few disads and is effectually topical is not a reason to dismiss it as awful.

So, at the end of the day, when answering the question "is WICA an awful case?". I say, Amazing? No. Impossible to win on? No.

You can answer all of my arguements if you would like, I am simply pointing out faults with WICA. Am I condemning it to Hell? No. Am I saying it is impossible to win on? No. I am saying that it is a hard case to win on. Most of the advantages that can be run with WICA can also be run with other cases that a) are more topical and B) have better solvency.

Run WICA if you would like, I am advising against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only way Wombat is a good case is if evidence excists (and you have it) that says something to the tune of "excluding women from combat effectivly [or metaphorically, symbolically, whatever] keeps them out of the military" then the Kritikal version of the aff could "metaphorically [or whatever]" increase women in the military (because in the squo no women are really in the military). Otherwise...it's not topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you are an idiot. DADT actually bans glbt from entering the military. WIC just doesnt allow women to fight in combat areas.

 

No. Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not ban homosexuals from entering the military.

 

There is a huge difference between being allowed to serve in general and being allowed to serve in a certain area of combat. There is evidence out there supporting your claim, I'm not denying this, but the fact that 40,000 women are going to join the army just so that they can fight in dangerous areas THAT THEY ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO FIGHT IN is not the greatest evidence.

 

And the "41,000" evidence is highly speculative and really not warranted at all.

 

As to your post about me no knowing enough about this topic, I cut a WICA file at camp. The two advantages in the file (the two best in my opinion) were readiness and patriarchy.

 

That doesn't mean anything... I think patriarchy is the best advantage, but the worst one to run in the case.

 

To top it all off, the original poster asked for discussion on why the aff is bad. Trying to justify why it is good does not belong in this forum.

 

Perhaps not, but when claims are just wrong, you have to refute them.

 

Not that I support the women in combat case, I do think it is terrible, but it's no worse than DADT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not ban homosexuals from entering the military.

 

I apologize. It bans glbt from serving openly. All the same, there is a great deal of evidence why glbt want to serve openly, while there is not a great deal of evidence as to why allowing wombat will make women want to join the military

 

And the "41,000" evidence is highly speculative and really not warranted at all.

 

1. the 41,000 is defined by the military itself

2. Even if you win that the definition is flawed I have not seen any evidence that says repealing WICA will make any # of women join the military. Even if substantially is .5 percent, there is no specific evidence that even 2,000 women will join

 

That doesn't mean anything... I think patriarchy is the best advantage, but the worst one to run in the case.

 

What other advantages would you run w/ WICA? Other than standard military advantages such as heg, etc, which can be solved by other cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I apologize. It bans glbt from serving openly. All the same, there is a great deal of evidence why glbt want to serve openly, while there is not a great deal of evidence as to why allowing wombat will make women want to join the military

 

You just compared two different things. There is just as much evidence on homosexuals wanting to serve openly as women wanting to be allowed in combat.

 

1. the 41,000 is defined by the military itself

2. Even if you win that the definition is flawed I have not seen any evidence that says repealing WICA will make any # of women join the military. Even if substantially is .5 percent, there is no specific evidence that even 2,000 women will join

 

I was referring to the 41,000 claim that DADT makes.

 

What other advantages would you run w/ WICA? Other than standard military advantages such as heg, etc, which can be solved by other cases.

 

I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I apologize. It bans glbt from serving openly. All the same, there is a great deal of evidence why glbt want to serve openly, while there is not a great deal of evidence as to why allowing wombat will make women want to join the military

 

1. the 41,000 is defined by the military itself

2. Even if you win that the definition is flawed I have not seen any evidence that says repealing WICA will make any # of women join the military. Even if substantially is .5 percent, there is no specific evidence that even 2,000 women will join

 

First you also aren't going to find any evidence that says something like a short term enlistment option is going to give you a specific number of persons guarenteed. There aren't any credible people that can really predict the future and how many people will join. And that DADT card is just bad

1) Your first point is just a lie, the survey was by the servicemembers legal defense network, an organization with the sole intention of taking out DADT. Check the website yourself. http://www.sldn.org

2) Its all predicated off of one guys take on the 2000 census. Somehow he just looks at the numbers, and decides how many gays are serving in the military already, and how many more would join if DADT were repealed. No card ive seen has actually cited the warrent behind this, they're just news sources that quote him saying yeah im thinking like 41000. Its like guessing the number of beans in a jar.

 

I'd much rather rely on the evidence ive brought up before. That the court has found its legal for the military to turn away women form enlisting just for being women because they aren't similarly situated in the military.

 

You aren't proving any point on topicality. There's no interpretation of the word increasing that could limit out women in combat but would not limit out DADT.

 

If your entire point is that it can fall to the deadly t-subs violation then fine, it might. But also notice that very few rounds are ever won on T-subs.

A) There’s no brightline standard to prevent abuse

B) The aff can always present a slightly less restrictive interpretation like subs is 25 percent instead of 30 and neg can never prove distinct abuse.

C)Neg teams have to research for contextual evidence to find what is substantial to each organization- and the aff will always have more.

D) It’s arbitrary- there are a thousand different definitions of substantial, both teams and the judge can never agree on which the most predictable is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own opinion, I for the most part agree with danny, its not the best case on the topic, but its far from awful. After running it at camp I would have ran it this year except i agree with the argument made above that everyone pretty much ignored that the military isnt the greatest place to solve patriarchy because they just kill people. I don't think things like "but it links to disads like the rest of the military" and its not topical aren't reasons that its horrendous. It has a lot of leverage against some of the typical military bad arguments, and some of the best affs on the topic are military cases regardless. And I've kind of found that good teams dont lose a lot on T jsut because theyre untopical, itll take some work to beat someone thats prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...