Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TDooley

Genocide Prevention AFF

Recommended Posts

Because they create a new force?

 

No... the case prevents genocide.. hence the name, genocide prevention..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No... the case prevents genocide.. hence the name, genocide prevention..

 

no shit, but i wonder how they prevent genocide......hmmm maybe a genocide prevention force...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you make a genocide prevention force? You might as well make a section of the army to end all nuclear proliferation and claim to solve for all types of extinction. It just does not work like that, you might as well fiat world peace. Basically, this does not seem very good at all. I would not run it, but tha is personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you make a genocide prevention force? You might as well make a section of the army to end all nuclear proliferation and claim to solve for all types of extinction. It just does not work like that, you might as well fiat world peace. Basically, this does not seem very good at all. I would not run it, but tha is personal.

 

thanks for that tidbit, ill be sure to take note to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you make a genocide prevention force? You might as well make a section of the army to end all nuclear proliferation and claim to solve for all types of extinction. It just does not work like that, you might as well fiat world peace. Basically, this does not seem very good at all. I would not run it, but tha is personal.

 

 

The 1AC merely needs to provide evidence stating that a force similar to the Aff plan would stop genocide when deployed. Actually, rather simple. There's tons of cards from tons of incredibly qualified sources that contend that military intervention (for example) would stop genocide.

 

Even if the neg says something for circumvention like "we don't know when genocide will happen" aff has plenty of cards noting that "the only reason we have not stopped genocide is because it was not politically popular to do so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still it is very abusive because you cannot fiat something like this. It is not topical at all and we all know how well fighting fire with fire works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they create a new force?

 

ha. kinda.

imagine this dude

under their interpretation, i could increase the number of ugandan peace corps members to measure rainfall and claim a cultural relitavism net benefit. i could increase the number of people in the armed forces to go to a specific cave section in iraq, and claim to capture osama bin laden with a terrorism net benefit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still it is very abusive because you cannot fiat something like this. It is not topical at all and we all know how well fighting fire with fire works.

 

awesome, keep throwing those claims out and not explaining yourself at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ha. kinda.

imagine this dude

under their interpretation, i could increase the number of ugandan peace corps members to measure rainfall and claim a cultural relitavism net benefit. i could increase the number of people in the armed forces to go to a specific cave section in iraq, and claim to capture osama bin laden with a terrorism net benefit

 

good look finding lit on any examples you gave, at least the genocide prevention aff has tons of authors, and alot of lit for both sides, i think that makes T less effective for the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still it is very abusive because you cannot fiat something like this. It is not topical at all and we all know how well fighting fire with fire works.

You can fiat the military create a genocide preventionforce. Whether they can or not is a qustion of solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good look finding lit on any examples you gave, at least the genocide prevention aff has tons of authors, and alot of lit for both sides, i think that makes T less effective for the case

 

there is tons of lit for roman history yet thats not T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good look finding lit on any examples you gave, at least the genocide prevention aff has tons of authors, and alot of lit for both sides, i think that makes T less effective for the case

 

ha so your answr is lit checks?

in this answre the lit is the abuse story. there is lit speculating on the possible loction of said amigo with a need for more forces, meaning spotty solvency is already aquired. there is zero warrent on why literature should justify a team to be topical. literature uniquely unlimits the topic and either way, this isnt offense, my interpretation is on balence better for debate. my point is, if i ran a counterplan to increase the number of persrons in the armed forces by X (x=the same number as plan in genocide prevention aff), it would function as a textual/functional pic and your answer would be 'doesnt sovle any of the case' because it doesnt. a plan to do the resolution should always be topical. and that is just to prove in round abuse, its still not what you do, its what you justify - key to set precedent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can fiat the military create a genocide preventionforce. Whether they can or not is a qustion of solvency.

 

this is true. my interpretation doesnt limit out your aff or the lit you provide, assuming you win its key. the plan could be like 'the usfg should increase the umber of persons serving in the armed forces by X' and if you have a solvency card that says the gov/people will send them to sudan, then your topical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some good evidence from o'hanlon, senior fellow at brookings, who advocates creating this genocide prevention unit. I believe he states that creating the division alone guarantees 5000. the sudan genocide/future genocides are advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is some good evidence from o'hanlon, senior fellow at brookings, who advocates creating this genocide prevention unit. I believe he states that creating the division alone guarantees 5000. the sudan genocide/future genocides are advantages

 

This isn't substantial in context of end strength and/or the baseline for the military. But I think Extra T (policy) is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...