Jump to content
Guest silvermdc1

Dead Soldiers Aff

Recommended Posts

Guest silvermdc1

I need a strat against a Dead Soldiers aff. This aff re enlists dead soldiers that served in the army i know a bunch of T but what else?!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff doesn't do ANYTHING. Thier argument is taht there is a ban on taking pictures of teh corpses of dead US soldiers. Thats a lie; their evidence will only talk about "flag drapped coffins coming home". This means that they have no internal link to their "facing the corpse advantage", because reenlisting the dead has nothing to do with being able to show them on tv, in news papers, or anything. Their is literally no solvency advocate, no evidence saying that the plan will allow for exposure, and no evidence saying that the media would want to show dead soldiers.

 

Since the aff functionally does nothing, its hard to piece together a real policy orientated strat. Just go for T; serving and persons.

If they defend the dead are paid, that might cause an issue to. Particularly considering the number of soldiers that have been employed by the US since the countries founding. I dont think the plan text will specify "that have died in combat", so uhhh, spending / wage inflation would KILL. Of course they'll K that, but whatev.

 

Dead soldiers might be key to Heg, everything is key to Heg....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe they claim fear of death as an adv. just read fear of death is good because it makes us fear of aids, space weapons, nukes, etc.

 

realism

 

immigration reform

 

increase- substantial w/o material quals

 

persons- living

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need a strat against a Dead Soldiers aff. This aff re enlists dead soldiers that served in the army i know a bunch of T but what else?!

 

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has made it clear that the strong survive to reproduce while the weak die off and are driven to extinction. One of the characteristics of living things that is the same with all living things is fear of death. Just as reproduction, movement, etc, are necessary for a living thing to survive, fear of death is also a necessity. Simply put, death is not an uncomfortable sensation, in terms of seeing death as the absence of consciousness and virtual non-existence. Yet if living things did not fear death, or evolve to best avoid death, then life would cease to exist.

This can lead to the conclusion that fear of death, or avoidance of death, is simply an evolutionary mechanism present since the first instance of life on earth. Life is 'programmed' with fear of death from the moment of creation, and the purely primal 'meaning of life' would be to avoid death as long as possible. This is visible in animals where it seems that avoidance of death is their primary goal.

This leads to the conclusion that fear of death is a result of evolution, and is the driving force behind life. Without fear of death life would not be able to exist, as living things seeing non-existence as unimportant would simply cease their life functions and die. www.wikipedia.org

 

 

T- Serving, as msacko said above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the cite above, it's from wikipedia, maybe find another site that says it. And if they call you on the arg saying you need to prove evolution to win that arg, say that it's non responsive to the warrant in the card which says fear is human instinct.

 

Also, to elaborate on the T, the standard to win is ground and voter for fairness. They spike all links based on an increase of persons serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the cite above, it's from wikipedia, maybe find another site that says it. And if they call you on the arg saying you need to prove evolution to win that arg, say that it's non responsive to the warrant in the card which says fear is human instinct.

 

Also, to elaborate on the T, the standard to win is ground and voter for fairness. They spike all links based on an increase of persons serving.

 

Yeah, I simply just typed "fear of death" in wikipedia, I guarantee you further research could probably give you the same evidence from a more credible source, I would, but Im done with debate for this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I hit this case at Cedar Rapids this year and the team that was running it was not good. When they disclosed we laughed and then went out in the hall to think up the greatest strat ever. It went something like this...

 

1NC

-- Consult NATO

-- T increasing persons

-- Heg bad

-- Lacanian kritik of policy action

-- RMA

 

2AC

He spent like 5 minutes reading a block to consult NATO, 2 minutes on T and consequently not much time on anything else

 

2NC

-- Kicking the CP

-- Lacan

1NR

-- T

 

2NR

-- Lacan (although we could have gone for Topicality just as easily)

 

It was total destruction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so I hit this case at Cedar Rapids this year and the team that was running it was not good. When they disclosed we laughed and then went out in the hall to think up the greatest strat ever. It went something like this...

 

1NC

-- Consult NATO

-- T increasing persons

-- Heg bad

-- Lacanian kritik of policy action

-- RMA

 

2AC

He spent like 5 minutes reading a block to consult NATO, 2 minutes on T and consequently not much time on anything else

 

2NC

-- Kicking the CP

-- Lacan

1NR

-- T

 

2NR

-- Lacan (although we could have gone for Topicality just as easily)

 

It was total destruction

 

I think that except for topicality ever single argument you read was contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually T contradicted our Lacan kritik... that was the beauty in it we were just going to be ready to go with perf con k to neg flexibility or whatever but they got too enthralled in their consult NATO shell to even notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol or how about spotting them their shitty i/l to fear of death and just impact turning it?

 

probably the only thing that made sense in this thread yet.

 

why not T, politics, and case offense. im pretty sure that such a policy would make bush look like more of an ass than anyone on the planet, and probably crush any hope of bipart (whichever link scenario u roll w/).

 

running a K against this aff is just making the debate way dumber than it has to be, stick w/ simple shit and just make fun of/impact turn their aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because...

 

#1: How much case offense are you currently rolling with on dead soldiers?

#2: Your tix scenario seems to kind of play into their fear of death thing... an argument on which they happen to be 8 minutes ahead of you

#3: Your policy approach is at some point going to have to be paired with some kind of framework attack which means you spend more time in the block going for framework than any other real argument

#4: The one argument on the strategy list that they didn't seem prepared for happened to be the kritik, we would have been just as ok with kicking the K and going for T and heg bad or T and the CP

#5: Our judge happened to be in love with the aff case and therefore making fun of the 1ac would have been a strategic mistake... to say the least

(e.g. next move to the ridicule of the 1ac flow where we are clearly destroying them on the one liners about dead soldiers)

 

I guess thats pretty much why

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We hit this case at CR Wash as well. I'd just like to say that we hit this team at Maine East as well, and they're smart guys but they run bad arguments, and they go 1-off fear of death on the neg too. We went for T primarily becasue the 1AR dropped it, but we would've gone for Kappler if they hadn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...