Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ALANgoodtime

Coast Guard strategy

Recommended Posts

looking for a good strategy against a coast guard affirmative increasing end strength with the advantages of terrorism and some sort of domestic coast guard navigation advantage (not entirely sure)

 

any help is greatly appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looking for a good strategy against a coast guard affirmative increasing end strength with the advantages of terrorism and some sort of domestic coast guard navigation advantage (not entirely sure)

 

any help is greatly appreciated

 

T-Subsets if you want

Recruitment trade-off disad

Offsets CP (take people off drug interdiction and have them do stuff like guard the ports)

 

Solvency-Coast Guard equipment is bad, more people wont solve this.

Solvency- Impossible to search all the cargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T-Subsets if you want

Recruitment trade-off disad

Offsets CP (take people off drug interdiction and have them do stuff like guard the ports)

 

Solvency-Coast Guard equipment is bad, more people wont solve this.

Solvency- Impossible to search all the cargo

 

Listen to this kid. He knows his Coast Gaurd. I jacked this strat from him, but I swapped out subsets for CG=/=Armed Forces, because I think it may be more winnable if it gets undercovered.

 

I just found something slightly ironic. The terminal impact to the recruitment trade-off disad, in addition to the case turn, is fishery laws...

 

STOP FISH!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't run Coast Guard =/= Armed Forces...its a lie. Subsets is a substantially better argument.

 

Also Drug Interdiction is a bad idea, because there is no Coast Guard Drug Interdiction program. Drug interdictions are only part of the job that everyone in the Coast guard does, the evidence about keeping the Coast Guard as a law enforcement and military organization being key to power projection is pretty good.

 

You would probably be better off running the CP that gives the Navy all of the Coast Guard's international missions because it solves the terrorism advantage (solves coast guard overstretch) and there is some evidence from the last year about how the navy has adapted to effectively project power. Depending on the aff that the team runs, most of the evidence was written before the most recent increase in Coast Guard end strength to 45,000. This should be enough defense to answer the solvency deficit arguments that they would make to the CP because their evidence doesn't assume the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't run Coast Guard =/= Armed Forces...its a lie. Subsets is a substantially better argument.

 

Also Drug Interdiction is a bad idea, because there is no Coast Guard Drug Interdiction program. Drug interdictions are only part of the job that everyone in the Coast guard does, the evidence about keeping the Coast Guard as a law enforcement and military organization being key to power projection is pretty good.

 

You would probably be better off running the CP that gives the Navy all of the Coast Guard's international missions because it solves the terrorism advantage (solves coast guard overstretch) and there is some evidence from the last year about how the navy has adapted to effectively project power. Depending on the aff that the team runs, most of the evidence was written before the most recent increase in Coast Guard end strength to 45,000. This should be enough defense to answer the solvency deficit arguments that they would make to the CP because their evidence doesn't assume the status quo.

 

Why do you think that Coast Guard not Armed Forces is worse than subsets?

 

In my opinion, subsets really isn't all that compelling of an argument against Coast Guard because, assuming the Coast Guard is a part of the Armed Forces, it's a principle sub-agency, so there's no real in-round ground loss.

 

On the other hand, if the CG=/=Armed Forces gets slightly undercovered, then the Neg can offer a, in my opinion, pretty compelling abuse story of how Neg teams should never be expected to be ready for agencies outside the Armed Forces and the Aff justifies increasing personnel in things like the CIA and calling it topical. Just because the CIA does things that relate to the military doesn't mean it's in the Armed Forces.

 

If nothing else, it works as a time skew that the Neg can win on.

 

And on the counterplan...

 

With the Drug Interdiction CP you have the net benefit of the recruitment trade-off disad. This disad links to the Navy CP, and it's one of the best DA's I've seen for the Coast Gaurd. It doesn't really matter if Drug Interdiction is a program or not because the Coast Guard still keeps a bunch of personnel doing interdiction, which is a waste of people and resources. By shift those personnel, you avoid the recruitment trade-off disad, capture the Aff's offense (which they lose because of the disad), and get the NB of interdiction bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that Coast Guard not Armed Forces is worse than subsets?

 

In my opinion, subsets really isn't all that compelling of an argument against Coast Guard because, assuming the Coast Guard is a part of the Armed Forces, it's a principle sub-agency, so there's no real in-round ground loss.

 

On the other hand, if the CG=/=Armed Forces gets slightly undercovered, then the Neg can offer a, in my opinion, pretty compelling abuse story of how Neg teams should never be expected to be ready for agencies outside the Armed Forces and the Aff justifies increasing personnel in things like the CIA and calling it topical. Just because the CIA does things that relate to the military doesn't mean it's in the Armed Forces.

 

If nothing else, it works as a time skew that the Neg can win on.

 

And on the counterplan...

 

With the Drug Interdiction CP you have the net benefit of the recruitment trade-off disad. This disad links to the Navy CP, and it's one of the best DA's I've seen for the Coast Gaurd. It doesn't really matter if Drug Interdiction is a program or not because the Coast Guard still keeps a bunch of personnel doing interdiction, which is a waste of people and resources. By shift those personnel, you avoid the recruitment trade-off disad, capture the Aff's offense (which they lose because of the disad), and get the NB of interdiction bad.

 

I agree with all this stuff on the bottom. As for the subsets v. cg not armed forces thing though, I still think subsets is better. The reason is that it should be fairly easy to meet the armed forces violation, and most defs of armed forces include the coast Guard. Furthermore the abuse story is a lot harder to win if you're coming up there with ev spec. to armed forces. But either way, neither are particularly strong against the aff. Subsets is more useful against non-Armed Forces affs and the abuse story is pretty sweet to spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that Coast Guard not Armed Forces is worse than subsets?

 

In my opinion, subsets really isn't all that compelling of an argument against Coast Guard because, assuming the Coast Guard is a part of the Armed Forces, it's a principle sub-agency, so there's no real in-round ground loss.

 

On the other hand, if the CG=/=Armed Forces gets slightly undercovered, then the Neg can offer a, in my opinion, pretty compelling abuse story of how Neg teams should never be expected to be ready for agencies outside the Armed Forces and the Aff justifies increasing personnel in things like the CIA and calling it topical. Just because the CIA does things that relate to the military doesn't mean it's in the Armed Forces.

 

If nothing else, it works as a time skew that the Neg can win on.

 

And on the counterplan...

 

With the Drug Interdiction CP you have the net benefit of the recruitment trade-off disad. This disad links to the Navy CP, and it's one of the best DA's I've seen for the Coast Gaurd. It doesn't really matter if Drug Interdiction is a program or not because the Coast Guard still keeps a bunch of personnel doing interdiction, which is a waste of people and resources. By shift those personnel, you avoid the recruitment trade-off disad, capture the Aff's offense (which they lose because of the disad), and get the NB of interdiction bad.

 

Subsets are better than Coast Guard =/= armed forces becasue saying that the Coast Guard is not part of the armed forces is a lie.

 

 

Department of Defense, 05 (http://www.dodea.edu/foia/iod/pdf/1342_20.pdf)

The term "Armed Forces," as used herein, refers to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.

 

Us Code, Title 14, Section 1

The Coast Guard as estsablished January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States AT ALL TIMES.

 

The reason that subsets is a good argument against Coast Guard is because there is not a very good counter-interpretation to it. It will be pretty easy to win that allowing around 6-10 cases is substantially better for debate than the thousands that the counter-interpretation would allow. And if you win competing interpretations the no abuse arguments don't matter very much.

 

The problem with offsets is, regardless of how good the net benefits is that it would functionally end the coast guard. The Coast Guard doesn't send people around looking for drugs. If they see a suspicious boat while patrolling fisheries they persue. There is no mission for drug interdiction, its just something Coast Guard Agents do. Even if you do win the argument that you can end drug interdictions without completely fucking over the Coast Guard, the perm will solve all of it.

 

Recruitment tradeoff is a really bad disad. It has huge uniqueness issues because if you actually read the evidence it says that training people takes experienced personnel off missions because they are overstretched. If the aff wins that the Coast Guard is overstretched in the status quo then the disad not only supercharges the uniqueness to the aff's advantages, because there is only a risk of the case solving overstretch, it also means that the case solves the disadvantage really easily. You are on the wrong side of the uniqueness/internal link debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is recruitment tradeoff disad

 

Unless they are talking about a different recruitment tradeoff disad, the story basically goes increasing personnel forces the Coast Guard to take experienced members off of mission to train people. This crushes readiness because they aren't able to complete missions, turning case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is recruitment tradeoff disad

 

When more recruits enter the Coast Guard, they end up taking the more experienced personnel off of duty to train them. This trades-off with current missions so it turns case. But the terminal impact to it is overfishing-->econ collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the coast guard would have to take off expirienced personnel to train former drug interdiction officers because drug interdictions hurt readiness of the personnel engaged in them. They engage in non-combat roles and thus would need training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen to this kid. He knows his Coast Gaurd. I jacked this strat from him, but I swapped out subsets for CG=/=Armed Forces, because I think it may be more winnable if it gets undercovered.

 

I just found something slightly ironic. The terminal impact to the recruitment trade-off disad, in addition to the case turn, is fishery laws...

 

STOP FISH!!!

 

It pains me that anyone would ever want to run this violation.

Subsets is the way to go always. Unless it's like...not a subset.

 

Edit: If it's not a subset, don't go for T period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It pains me that anyone would ever want to run this violation.

Subsets is the way to go always. Unless it's like...not a subset.

 

On a lighter note about T against this case. Increase=mandate would work if they use incentives. And that should always be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a lighter note about T against this case. Increase=mandate would work if they use incentives. And that should always be an option.

 

Yeah but the plan text this person is asking about mandates increase of end strength (aka mich 7 week aff)

 

Increase = mandate

and

subsets

 

are just too awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but the plan text this person is asking about mandates increase of end strength (aka mich 7 week aff)

 

Increase = mandate

and

subsets

 

are just too awesome.

 

A lift of end strength doesn't mandate the increase. It allows for the increase to happen. I don't know what the Mich plan text says though so it might mandate the increase...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An increase in the end strength is a congressional mandate that the organization increases in size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lift of end strength doesn't mandate the increase. It allows for the increase to happen. I don't know what the Mich plan text says though so it might mandate the increase...

 

 

Juniors.

If the plan mandates a number/budgetary support it does, which is how most plan texts are (should be) set up.

 

IE: The United States federal government should substantially increase the number of persons serving in the Coast Guard by mandating that its end strength be increased by 11,000 by fiscal year 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An increase in the end strength is a congressional mandate that the organization increases in size.

 

An increase in End Strength makes it so that the organization can support up to x amount of people. If the government lifted the Coast Guards end strength to 100,000 people, then 100,000 people aren't in the Coast Guard and the government isn't making it so. However, if the government mandated that the Coast Guard authorize and mandate the expansion to x number, then it's topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The edit button isnt working, but sorry i worded the text wrong...

 

should be

 

Plan: The United States federal government should mandate that the Coast Guard authorize budgetary support to increase the number of troops by 65,000 through a permanant expansion of its End Strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An increase in End Strength makes it so that the organization can support up to x amount of people. If the government lifted the Coast Guards end strength to 100,000 people, then 100,000 people aren't in the Coast Guard and the government isn't making it so. However, if the government mandated that the Coast Guard authorize and mandate the expansion to x number, then it's topical.

 

No, Congress increasing the End Strength is comparitve to Congress literally telling the Coast Guard to increase the number of people. Now just raising it and allowing it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Congress increasing the End Strength is comparitve to Congress literally telling the Coast Guard to increase the number of people. Now just raising it and allowing it to happen.

 

No. It's Congress telling the Coast Guard the funding is allotted for it to operate at the amount, not the equivalent of them requiring the Coast Guard to operate at the max level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It's Congress telling the Coast Guard the funding is allotted for it to operate at the amount, not the equivalent of them requiring the Coast Guard to operate at the max level.

 

Yeah Bangladesh is totally right. Increasing End Strength just authorizes that the troops can join. Mandating would actually bring the number of troops to that number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's the story with this affirmative. It is about the easiest aff to run a T violation on. As you have probably read in previous posts, there are multiple options. Lets start with the coast guard is not armed forces first. This is a good argument to run with the Joint-Co Op CP. For the T violation say that 'Armed Forces=Navy, Army, and Air Force' it's a pretty easy def to find. Just make sure it doesn't include coast guard, lol. Next talk about how coast guard is ONLY A PART OF THE ARMED FORCES when it works under the navy. Now this is where it gets better. For the case you specifically listed, they claim one of their advantages is terrorism. There are cards that say if the coast guard is fighting terrorism, it operates under the DOD. That's game over right there because have of their solvency stems off an untopical advantage, lol. Then you run the Joint Co-Op CP that basically just says you combine the Coast Guard and Navy and like increase in the navy or something. Someone else can elaborate on that.

 

Another very solid strategy is something I know is definitely favored by bagledash counterplan, which is subsets. Define Armed Forces as a collective noun. If you increase in the armed forces it needs to be throughout all aspects of it. The Navy is a subset of the armed forces, the coast guard is a subset of the navy, and sometimes people will run a subset of coast guard! This fucks over your ground and is very abusive with case arguments. The thing though is if you decide to run this don't put too much case-specific on solvency or you are basically running t just to run it. You want to prove in-round abuse and show the judge that they are taking away significant ground.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok here's the story with this affirmative. It is about the easiest aff to run a T violation on. As you have probably read in previous posts, there are multiple options. Lets start with the coast guard is not armed forces first. This is a good argument to run with the Joint-Co Op CP. For the T violation say that 'Armed Forces=Navy, Army, and Air Force' it's a pretty easy def to find. Just make sure it doesn't include coast guard, lol. Next talk about how coast guard is ONLY A PART OF THE ARMED FORCES when it works under the navy. Now this is where it gets better. For the case you specifically listed, they claim one of their advantages is terrorism. There are cards that say if the coast guard is fighting terrorism, it operates under the DOD. That's game over right there because have of their solvency stems off an untopical advantage, lol. Then you run the Joint Co-Op CP that basically just says you combine the Coast Guard and Navy and like increase in the navy or something. Someone else can elaborate on that.

 

Another very solid strategy is something I know is definitely favored by bagledash counterplan, which is subsets. Define Armed Forces as a collective noun. If you increase in the armed forces it needs to be throughout all aspects of it. The Navy is a subset of the armed forces, the coast guard is a subset of the navy, and sometimes people will run a subset of coast guard! This fucks over your ground and is very abusive with case arguments. The thing though is if you decide to run this don't put too much case-specific on solvency or you are basically running t just to run it. You want to prove in-round abuse and show the judge that they are taking away significant ground.

 

Coast Guard =/= AF is TERRIBLE

 

SUBSETS = BOMB.

KIKI GEEZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...