Jump to content
TempusMoriendi

WIC - Awful Case?

Recommended Posts

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the numbers, and decides how many gays are serving in the military already, and how many more would join if DADT were repealed.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

 

Ok.

I am sorry that I "lied" on the t definition. I was only looking at the underlined part :)

Second of all, I am not trying to justify DADT. I am simply saying that I have not seen any warranted evidence that says repealing WICA laws will make more women serve. This, in my opinion, makes the case quite vulnerable to t-increasing/t-substantially. My point is that regardless of the definition of substantially, it will be hard for an aff to find specific cards describing how many people will join the military as a result of WICA. If you have found cards as such, than by all means use them, however I have not seen any camp files with specific or even general evidence as to how many people will join.

On the other hand, there are specific cards for DADT (newswire 05, etc) that specifically address how many people will join the military. Also, there are specific cards stating how many people will be allowed to stay in the military.

 

As cody said, the advantages run with WICA generally are hard to solve for. Patriarchy can never be fully solved for, and integrating women into the military is not the greatest solvency mechanism (ie see my above posts).

 

I'm not saying that WICA is the worst case this year. I'm only pointing out some obvious flaws in it. It can be a very good case if one is ready to block out many arguments such as f/x t, substantially, and other common args against this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DADT is a ban on gays in the military. Some Professors agree. They do not know if you are gay, but if they know you are, they kick you out. That is a ban in all but name. They treat you like a heterosexual. They act as though you are a heterosexual. If they find out you are a homosexual, you can say bye bye. It's an indirect ban in the least, and a direct ban at worst. It depends on how you look at it.

 

Synergy, you just said that End Strength doesn't count since September 30th in the topicality on DADT in another section... or you agreed with someone saying it, so why are you saying it now?

 

SLDN is a very respectable organization. It's better than all the negative sources like the Center for Military Readiness, that wants to altogether ban gays.

 

The 41,000 is well waranted. Gates is a Senior Fellow at the Williams Research Institute, he applied the proportions of straight people in society to the number in the military, and he applied that to the number of gays in society to the number in the miltiary, and he solved for X, and got subtracted the already 65,000 serving and got 41,000. There are cards that warrant and explain this. Gates is not involved with SLDN. You have no right to criticize the 41,000. If it is introduced in the round, and you just attack it, but don't have an alternative card, then it ought to be accepted. It has warrants.

 

Can anyone show one card that says women would be found if the 5% positions are allowed for women? One single card that has a warrant? I know that congresswoman has one on 20,000, but she may have been referring to the number on active duty, and it had NO WARRANT.

 

Lay judge, and you win on the patriarchy. Yes, giving women the patriarchal values of war solves for actual patriarchy, and yet it keeps the impacts of war. Just let a woman go out and shoot someone so that she can prevent men from waging war and committing to nuclearism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can't rely on aff not increasing the cap....

 

anyways, militarism kritik to the max!!!

 

but if they lift the cap, just PIC to end the exclusion but not lift the cap....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DADT is a ban on gays in the military. Some Professors agree. They do not know if you are gay, but if they know you are, they kick you out. That is a ban in all but name. They treat you like a heterosexual. They act as though you are a heterosexual. If they find out you are a homosexual, you can say bye bye. It's an indirect ban in the least, and a direct ban at worst. It depends on how you look at it.

 

It's a ban on homosexuality, not on individuals who are homosexual.

 

Synergy, you just said that End Strength doesn't count since September 30th in the topicality on DADT in another section... or you agreed with someone saying it, so why are you saying it now?

 

SLDN is a very respectable organization. It's better than all the negative sources like the Center for Military Readiness, that wants to altogether ban gays.

 

The 41,000 is well waranted. Gates is a Senior Fellow at the Williams Research Institute, he applied the proportions of straight people in society to the number in the military, and he applied that to the number of gays in society to the number in the miltiary, and he solved for X, and got subtracted the already 65,000 serving and got 41,000. There are cards that warrant and explain this. Gates is not involved with SLDN. You have no right to criticize the 41,000. If it is introduced in the round, and you just attack it, but don't have an alternative card, then it ought to be accepted. It has warrants.

 

Yeah, that's ridiculous. There are so many other factors than simple numbers in determining how many people would join, and even if he's anywhere near right, no one ever reads that warrant.

 

I have a right to criticize the 41,000. I think it's just plain unwarranted (and wrong). No one's talking about a round. I'm speaking in general. And even if we were debating in a round, my not having evidence would be irrelevant.

 

Can anyone show one card that says women would be found if the 5% positions are allowed for women? One single card that has a warrant? I know that congresswoman has one on 20,000, but she may have been referring to the number on active duty, and it had NO WARRANT.

 

I'll grant you that the women in combat evidence is pretty terrible also.

 

Lay judge, and you win on the patriarchy. Yes, giving women the patriarchal values of war solves for actual patriarchy, and yet it keeps the impacts of war. Just let a woman go out and shoot someone so that she can prevent men from waging war and committing to nuclearism.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they're willing to believe that ending patriarchy is really good, but they'd just as easily be swayed by the argument that it's impossible. Also, I can't see how using that rhetoric would convince a lay judge, unless you are being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find this case pretty strategic. as a negative team, i feel you have to go far left or far right. Defending the status quo is probably hard because the WIC adv cards are quite good.

 

Im pretty sure the aff link turns on most military based K's are quite good too- thats the whole aff.

 

All your terrible generic arguments like adventurism and spending arent going to win you many debates against a good version of this AFF.

 

Im curious as to how the WIC people answer the realism da

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is a cap on the total number of people allowed to be in the armed forces.

Yeah, but from what I know it doesn't apply during wartime.

 

As for WIC- second biggest masking link for biopower ever, next to dadt perm do plan to deconstruct biopower because homosexuals are forced to normalize themselves to join the army. And K turns case, but that's just me, and I run biopower every round aff and neg haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i find this case pretty strategic. as a negative team, i feel you have to go far left or far right. Defending the status quo is probably hard because the WIC adv cards are quite good.

 

Im pretty sure the aff link turns on most military based K's are quite good too- thats the whole aff.

 

All your terrible generic arguments like adventurism and spending arent going to win you many debates against a good version of this AFF.

 

Im curious as to how the WIC people answer the realism da

In my experience (which is limited) they tend to argue Realism bad (if they don't use heg of course) and argue it as an adavantage to case, breaking down realist mindsets, solving war etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but from what I know it doesn't apply during wartime.

 

Well then you obviously don't know very much about end strength.

 

During wartime, its possible to pass waivers that temporarily increase end strength by 30,000, but we've already done that (putting end strength at 512,000), which means that any number of troops above that number isn't authorized in the defense budget. Because they don't get any money for those troops, the DOD will choose to stay at the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but from what I know it doesn't apply during wartime.

 

As for WIC- second biggest masking link for biopower ever, next to dadt perm do plan to deconstruct biopower because homosexuals are forced to normalize themselves to join the army. And K turns case, but that's just me, and I run biopower every round aff and neg haha.

 

"Masking Link" - give me a fucking break.

 

Here is your biopower link argument (s)

You use the military

You use static notions of identity

 

Having seen the aff literture, the aff link turns are better and more specific. Game Over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes but you are forgetting that END strength is measured at the END of the fiscal year... so they aff just has to ask the DoD for funding, Which is "Guaranteed"

 

then PIC out of "funding guaranteed" and say only the plan results in an increase--solves the whole case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Masking Link" - give me a fucking break.

 

Here is your biopower link argument (s)

You use the military

You use static notions of identity

 

Having seen the aff literture, the aff link turns are better and more specific. Game Over.

Masking links are good becaue not only are they links but they also discredit at least to a certain degree all the link turnarguments you make. Besides, there is lit on women integration into the military-->militarism and biopower. Its just as specific and when you add in the links you mentioned it makes for a pretty strong link wall the neg uses against your link turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Masking Link" - give me a fucking break.

 

Here is your biopower link argument (s)

You use the military

You use static notions of identity

 

Having seen the aff literture, the aff link turns are better and more specific. Game Over.

The two links you mention are the initial 1nc links of course, and then the perm/link turn is a new masking link, which

1. kills the link turn/perm

2. generates more offense with the K

3. let's you get into in depth about how the plan is just a means for the sovereign to allow all sexual categories to be utilized for a means to the state's ends.

4. at best, the plan solves a small part of normalization, however all the neg has to win is that plan causes individuals to lose agency/autonomy and that outweighs any normalization because it makes a person become a docile body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm, awesome.

 

question how does it solve? I mean case solvency depends upon the volunteers actually serving... and the Peace Corps needs the funds to train them/send them overseas.

 

I said that it solves in the case of an aff like WIC that just put it in to be topical and doesn't actually have an advantage based off an increase. Where did the Peace Corps come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said that it solves in the case of an aff like WIC that just put it in to be topical and doesn't actually have an advantage based off an increase. Where did the Peace Corps come from?

 

wouldnt there patriarchy advantage be based off an increase of womyn in combat...

 

or is the disticntion that there already in the military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The two links you mention are the initial 1nc links of course, and then the perm/link turn is a new masking link, which

1. kills the link turn/perm

2. generates more offense with the K

3. let's you get into in depth about how the plan is just a means for the sovereign to allow all sexual categories to be utilized for a means to the state's ends.

4. at best, the plan solves a small part of normalization, however all the neg has to win is that plan causes individuals to lose agency/autonomy and that outweighs any normalization because it makes a person become a docile body.

 

ugh i hate you stupid K people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldnt there patriarchy advantage be based off an increase of womyn in combat...

 

or is the disticntion that there already in the military?

 

I've been running WIC this year... and we actually claim our whole Fem IR deal by saying that Patriarchy is justified by the exclusion policy... military men look to the institutionalization of sexism and use that law to justify their own partiarchal nature.

 

anyways thats another one of our internal link stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldnt there patriarchy advantage be based off an increase of womyn in combat...

 

or is the disticntion that there already in the military?

 

 

Yes, which the counterplan allows--it just doesn't allow a net increase in the size of the Army. All the women already in the army can serve in combat, and any women who join the army later can serve in combat. The only difference is that the end strength level isn't changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not do the plan and just cap the military?

 

that is what the CP I suggested is. however, unless the plan actually raises the end strength/says funding guaranteed/whatever, the CP wouldn't be competitive. perm--do the CP.

 

Plan 1 (not t)

End the combat restrictions on women

 

CP 1

End the combat restrictions on women and cap the army.

 

clearly not competitive--its plan plus.

 

Plan 2 (t)

End the combat restrictions on women. funding for more troops guaranteed.

 

CP 2

end the combat restrictions on women

 

now its a PIC, clearly competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is what the CP I suggested is. however, unless the plan actually raises the end strength/says funding guaranteed/whatever, the CP wouldn't be competitive. perm--do the CP.

 

Plan 1 (not t)

End the combat restrictions on women

 

CP 1

End the combat restrictions on women and cap the army.

 

clearly not competitive--its plan plus.

 

Plan 2 (t)

End the combat restrictions on women. funding for more troops guaranteed.

 

CP 2

end the combat restrictions on women

 

now its a PIC, clearly competitive.

 

makes sense. theoritcally they can read there advantages to increase troops against the cp..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makes sense. theoritcally they can read there advantages to increase troops against the cp..

 

They can, but

 

a) If its a critical aff, they probably wont be reading a hegemony addon

B) If its a readiness aff, then the CP solves all the other internal links to hegemony which overwhelms the solvency deficit and any other net benefit outweighs

 

Besides, its clearly strategic for the negative when the affs only answer to the CP is to ignore the 8 minutes they spent reading stuff in the 1AC and weigh some 2ac troops addon against however many net benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...