Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ALANgoodtime

Coast Guard strategy

Recommended Posts

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.

 

LOL YOU JUST SAID TO RUN COAST GUARD NOT ARMED FORCES, AND THEN NEXT READ A VIOLATION SAYING COAST GUARD IS ONLY PART ARMED FORCES. PCIK ONE KEEK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL YOU JUST SAID TO RUN COAST GUARD NOT ARMED FORCES, AND THEN NEXT READ A VIOLATION SAYING COAST GUARD IS ONLY PART. pick one keek.

 

HAHAHAHAH

I love Keekaleek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

p.s. the downed and bagladash are right. The deal with end strength is it's like a cap zeus. Right now congress will only give the coast guard x amount of supplies which allows it to accomodate to x number of recruits. The aff argues that you should lift the end strength (a.k.a. the cap, or the people ALLOWED to be in the Coast Guard) and allot the appropriate supplies along with it. The aff's argument is usually recruiting is really high in the status quo, but there is not enough funding or there is some inherent barrier preventing an increase. They increase via removing this barrier (lifting end strength).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL YOU JUST SAID TO RUN COAST GUARD NOT ARMED FORCES, AND THEN NEXT READ A VIOLATION SAYING COAST GUARD IS ONLY PART ARMED FORCES. PCIK ONE KEEK.

 

no dude I was providing two DIFFERENT strategies so he could choose. Hence the paragraph break genius.

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.

 

To be serious though, he's right about the abuse on subsets. In a competing interps debate you can win on it. But reading armed forces is a collective noun doesn't help with the violation. The violation's centered around the word "in." If the aff wins that in means within, then it's totally cool that the armed forces refers to all 5 branches in entirety because Coast Guard is within the entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be serious though, he's right about the abuse on subsets. In a competing interps debate you can win on it. But reading armed forces is a collective noun doesn't help with the violation. The violation's centered around the word "in." If the aff wins that in means within, then it's totally cool that the armed forces refers to all 5 branches in entirety because Coast Guard is within the entirety.

 

I think I just shed a tear in my eye for how beautiful our rockin T args are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be serious though, he's right about the abuse on subsets. In a competing interps debate you can win on it. But reading armed forces is a collective noun doesn't help with the violation. The violation's centered around the word "in." If the aff wins that in means within, then it's totally cool that the armed forces refers to all 5 branches in entirety because Coast Guard is within the entirety.

 

bangladesh is right. You must win in=throughout, but that comes all along with armed forces being a collective noun. To make it better in your t shell include both. Start with in=throughout, then define armed forces as a collective noun. Then point out that the aff does not increase throughout the entirety of the armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bangladesh is right. You must win in=throughout, but that comes all along with armed forces being a collective noun. To make it better in your t shell include both. Start with in=throughout, then define armed forces as a collective noun. Then point out that the aff does not increase throughout the entirety of the armed forces.

 

 

You don't have to win the collective noun debate...the IN is met only when the person defends the entirety of the organization, so you only have to win the IN debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please for the love of a higher deity stop bickering over the coast guard being topical. there are 26 other threads exactly like this that originated because someone doesn't know how to use the search function and wants to know what to run on this aff, all of which have all devolved into the subsets v not armed forces violation and which is superior. please stop.

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.

 

The agency that they operate under has no affect on whether or not the Coast Guard is part of the Armed Forces. Also your Coast Guard only part of the armed forces when working with the navy are really bad, and out of context. Joint Co-op is a bad idea because it kills the international image of the Coast Guard being an inherently non-military organization, turning any hope of the CP solving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please for the love of a higher deity stop bickering over the coast guard being topical. there are 26 other threads exactly like this that originated because someone doesn't know how to use the search function and wants to know what to run on this aff, all of which have all devolved into the subsets v not armed forces violation and which is superior. please stop.

 

 

Thanks for the input on Coast Guard...not.

Why don't you use the search function for "I am a douche who likes to post pointless stuff on random threads because I have no life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please for the love of a higher deity stop bickering over the coast guard being topical. there are 26 other threads exactly like this that originated because someone doesn't know how to use the search function and wants to know what to run on this aff, all of which have all devolved into the subsets v not armed forces violation and which is superior. please stop.

 

Dude. This is totally different. We had a debate about mandating earlier. Duhhhh. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please for the love of a higher deity stop bickering over the coast guard being topical. there are 26 other threads exactly like this that originated because someone doesn't know how to use the search function and wants to know what to run on this aff, all of which have all devolved into the subsets v not armed forces violation and which is superior. please stop.

 

"Every party has a pooper, that's what we invited you for...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The agency that they operate under has no affect on whether or not the Coast Guard is part of the Armed Forces. Also your Coast Guard only part of the armed forces when working with the navy are really bad, and out of context. Joint Co-op is a bad idea because it kills the international image of the Coast Guard being an inherently non-military organization, turning any hope of the CP solving.

 

Dude are you fucking retarded?!?! Coast Guard doesn't need an international image. The reason this affirmative is existent is because coast guard sucks. They need to improve it, it's overstretched. The U.S. Armed Forces has an international image....Coast Guard is a term affiliated with border patrol, that's about it...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude are you fucking retarded?!?! Coast Guard doesn't need an international image. The reason this affirmative is existent is because coast guard sucks. They need to improve it, it's overstretched. The U.S. Armed Forces has an international image....Coast Guard is a term affiliated with border patrol, that's about it...lol

 

 

First off, that US image is hege, so the Coast Guard DOES need it.

Second, to Zeus: IF THE AFF WAS USING THE COAST GUARD IN A RARE INSTANCE WHERE IT WASNT NAVAL BASED, ITD BE EVEN MORE NON TOPICAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude are you fucking retarded?!?! Coast Guard doesn't need an international image. The reason this affirmative is existent is because coast guard sucks. They need to improve it, it's overstretched. The U.S. Armed Forces has an international image....Coast Guard is a term affiliated with border patrol, that's about it...lol

 

National Guard does Border Patrol. Not the CG. But I don't know enough about the Navy shit you guys are talking about because all my 2nrs are T and that's all I know. kthnx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude are you fucking retarded?!?! Coast Guard doesn't need an international image. The reason this affirmative is existent is because coast guard sucks. They need to improve it, it's overstretched. The U.S. Armed Forces has an international image....Coast Guard is a term affiliated with border patrol, that's about it...lol

 

..............do you not know what the aff's advantages are?

 

Do you not know what a mandate is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
National Guard does Border Patrol. Not the CG. But I don't know enough about the Navy shit you guys are talking about because all my 2nrs are T and that's all I know. kthnx.

 

 

GG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, that US image is hege, so the Coast Guard DOES need it.

Second, to Zeus: IF THE AFF WAS USING THE COAST GUARD IN A RARE INSTANCE WHERE IT WASNT NAVAL BASED, ITD BE EVEN MORE NON TOPICAL

 

The Coast Guard is still part of the Armed Forces even when it isn't operating within the navy. The key part of the US Code is where it says AT ALL TIMES. Also, the aff specifying where troops would be used in their plan text would just be extra T on face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Coast Guard is still part of the Armed Forces even when it isn't operating within the navy. The key part of the US Code is where it says AT ALL TIMES. Also, the aff specifying where troops would be used in their plan text would just be extra T on face.

 

Okay if the Coast Guard works within Homeland Security (which it can do now), it's not T.

 

And- even if that's true, plan text for a mandate doesn't direct where they go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not know what a mandate is?

 

On the mandate issue, I told you I phrased it wrong.

 

What I meant to say was that all the aff would have to say is that you measure increases through baselines. The baseline in terms of the Armed Forces is the end strength. So an increase in the end strength would be on face mandating that the Coast Guard gets bigger in size, at least legally.

 

Also, armed forces have to meet the end strength at the end of the fiscal year, so it is functionally mandating.

 

This was all explained better by senghas in another post.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...