woman in combat, Help!!!!!!!!

[biopower 49]

Subs. means w/o mat quals

 

i dont see how this argument is applicable to any topic on the resolution, as substantially modifies increase and not persons.

 

answering the question of the thread, theres no reason to get too technical with WIC. Just run a CP that solves patriarchy (we run Morrison, dont know what others run) w/ a couple DAs and some case offense on why women in the military is bad.

 

T increase is always a good choice

[Neurotic_Mastermind 1650]

How about the Womyn PIC? It sounds so dumb, but if they have "women" in the plan text, there's the CP and NB right there. I'm not a huge fan of gendered language K, but if you run WIC and then spell women that way, there's not much you can do to get out of it.

Except say "We do not endorse the gendered language."

[bob hope 29]

pretty much, and I think that a lot harder than defeating this aff is rolling with this aff and winning

[bluey 113]

Except say "We do not endorse the gendered language."

 

Sure, it's not like there isn't an answer. That's not my point. My point is that gendered language bad lit is more compelling against an aff that makes an effort to break down gender stereotypes then the neg wins a link that says they reinforce them. And I mean that it's much harder for someone who runs WIC to duck those links than someone who runs whatever aff and has a card that says "mankind" somewhere in it.

[bob hope 29]

bc this is such a good argument regardless of the link quality

[bluey 113]

bc this is such a good argument regardless of the link quality

 

Again, I agree, gendered language K is not a fantastic argument. It's especially compelling against WIC affs. It's probably not cool to pass up a good specific strat that you have good lit for just because you don't like that position. Flexibility is generally a good thing.

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

i've been studing Woman in Combat for a while now. But i still dont know how to answer this case. Can someone help me?

There is some lit. comming out that says after the war in Iraq, Congress will review and pass legislation saying that ban all restrictions.

 

There is also some lit. saying that women having all access now will uniquely caause failure in iraq perceptually (spelling). So, CP out by saying that we will remove all women to non-combatitive positions and then read the above card that says that CP solves the case.

[fhqwhgads 122]

bc this is such a good argument regardless of the link quality

 

im pretty sure they said to use it as PIC if they explicitly have "Women" in their plan text, in which case almost none of the regular affirmative answers apply.

 

Then again, I haven't seen any version of this aff that actually refer to "women" in the plan text instead of something like "gender."

[bluey 113]

Then again, I haven't seen any version of this aff that actually refer to "women" in the plan text instead of something like "gender."

 

Granted, there aren't very many. I've seen maybe one or two all year.

 

Aside from that, you can always CP to lift the restriction in another nation whose regulations are more strict and better enforced. Almost any DA as a NB. Most of the I/L's to patriarchy and the other more K ads aren't US specific, although the CP admittedly wouldn't solve lesbian baiting or other ads like that.

[biopower 49]

There is some lit. comming out that says after the war in Iraq, Congress will review and pass legislation saying that ban all restrictions.

 

There is also some lit. saying that women having all access now will uniquely caause failure in iraq perceptually (spelling). So, CP out by saying that we will remove all women to non-combatitive positions and then read the above card that says that CP solves the case.

 

systemic harms?

...inherency FTW

 

and what is the ev that says they have access now...cause they r still barred from combat positions

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

First of all, the systemic harms will be outwieghed when the military blames women for the lose in Iraq--increases rape and patriarchy--case turn anyone?.

 

Second, the articles ive been reading (simple LN and Google News searches) all indicate that Iraq is like the Gulf war and that women are "in combat".

[biopower 49]

First of all, the systemic harms will be outwieghed when the military blames women for the lose in Iraq--increases rape and patriarchy--case turn anyone?.

 

Second, the articles ive been reading (simple LN and Google News searches) all indicate that Iraq is like the Gulf war and that women are "in combat".

 

are you really serious? theres no ev that says if we lost the war in iraq there would be a unique increase in raping women. nice try tho

 

the card does suck, and oops you have no uniqueness for those args--rape/patriarchy are occuring now, only a risk doing the aff will solve and systemic harms provide risk of impact before end of iraq war.

 

theres no reason the CP would solve the case by barring women from combat, and yes their evidence is WAY better on this point.

 

your articles are all talking about women who happen to be caught in ambushes, because none of them are actually allowed in "combat positions"

[Seligmi 5]

wombats is stupid, run fuco

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

There's a reason you probably have not won a neg round versus WIC against an experinced team.

are you really serious? theres no ev that says if we lost the war in iraq there would be a unique increase in raping women. nice try tho

 

This is stupid:

A. If we win that you lead to the blaming of women, and the reason that women are being raped in the status quo is because "they are the reason the military loses wars", then it is not crazy to say taht would lead to an increase of women being raped.

 

B. Emperically our argument is right--after `nam, the number of women being raped shot up.

 

C. Even if you are right, if we win that womens rights in the military would be rolled back because of losing in iraq, we still win a case turn. Nice try, come back next weekend.

 

the card does suck, and oops you have no uniqueness for those args--rape/patriarchy are occuring now, only a risk doing the aff will solve and systemic harms provide risk of impact before end of iraq war.

 

Of course we dont have evidence saying that rape is down now--but we have evidence saying that women's rights in the military are increasing. If we win taht you cause that rollback then we win. This is above.

 

Moreover, Your evidence doesn't make that timeframe distinction, while ours does.

theres no reason the CP would solve the case by barring women from combat, and yes their evidence is WAY better on this point.

Uh, The terminal imapct to WIC is feminizing the military--if we win that we wait till we win the War in Iraq would lead to the same solutions as the aff, that means we solve case.

 

This is above, no piece of aff evidence makes the timeframe distinction, only the "patriachy is a no-no-nay-nay" distinction.

your articles are all talking about women who happen to be caught in ambushes, because none of them are actually allowed in "combat positions"

 

This doesn't mean that we are wrong-we can still win taht winning in iraq => women in combat and that losing Iraq => rollback. Game Over. Ball game. Home Run.