Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrfreezer

Navy Aff

Recommended Posts

I've a ton of questions from last week's tournament...

 

In last week's tournament, my partner and i went against a navy aff that another school put together. Basically, the aff calls for an increase of personnels in the navy and their advantage is 1. secure oil in Iran (or Iraq, somewhere in the middle east) and 2. secure peace between China and Taiwan (something about unstable Chinese conflicts). My partner and i were completely creamed! Can anyone help us figure out what to run if we go against it again. Thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno how well this would work, but this is what I would try against it.

 

CP Expand Coast Guard end strength. It gains competition by using the trade off D/A from Michigan 7 week and then net benefits can just be random coast guard advantages, mainly the one saying it helps with Navy power projection. The CP also gains the Oil Adv because CG protects Oil in Iraq, and it gains the China adv because they project help project the Navy's power.

 

Nuke Sub D/A. Doesn't link to the CG CP because I am pretty sure the CG gets its funding from department of transportation, not DoD.

 

Yea I can't really think of anything else lol, but these two arguments should be enough to beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go

T

 

spending

 

Heg.

 

Militarism K

 

but the rest would just be time sucks kick it in the 2nr and go straight for T. In means throught, your links should prove abuse, because you have no evidence on the Navy. This is what T was made for. If you go for it you will win it because it's fucking true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was it the pinecrest aff???

 

Yes, we run a navy aff.

 

T "in means throughout"

 

Biopower

 

Case is kind of an impact turn to the biopower kritik, I don't see why it's uniquely strategic against this aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we run a navy aff.

 

 

 

Case is kind of an impact turn to the biopower kritik, I don't see why it's uniquely strategic against this aff.

yea dude they dont link anymore than any other aff 2 biopower...but subsets is never a bad idea...but almost all their solvency shit is off of solving stop-loss...anways...they also are another hege aff...but this is all irrelavant 2 non toc teams...b/c ITS DONE WITH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we run a navy aff.

 

 

 

Case is kind of an impact turn to the biopower kritik, I don't see why it's uniquely strategic against this aff.

 

hey retard- that logic means the biopower kritik is also an impact turn to the case.

 

Duh!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey retard- that logic means the biopower kritik is also an impact turn to the case.

 

Duh!

 

I mean obviously Lifton cards and such are good but I just don't see why there's a UNIQUE reason biopower is strategic against this aff. I mean I think Kagan mixed with case makes it less strategic against an aff like LSA where Kagan would kills civil society solvency as well so it can't be run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean obviously Lifton cards and such are good but I just don't see why there's a UNIQUE reason biopower is strategic against this aff. I mean I think Kagan mixed with case makes it less strategic against an aff like LSA where Kagan would kills civil society solvency as well so it can't be run.

 

Rephrase so it makes more sense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rephrase so it makes more sense.

 

No unique reason a biopower kritik should be read against this aff. The hegemony links, like Lifton etc., are good but cards like Kagan, Ferguson, O'Kane etc. answer it back very well and case is an impact turn to the kritik. Yes, a good Foucault debater who runs this kritik all the time may opt to run it against this aff, but I don't see why it is the best strategy in the context of this case. I also think that if you really wanted to kritik heg then running a pull out of Iraq alternative with some Lifton solvency is more strategic in terms of avoiding some of the affs generic arguments. Nevertheless, a biopower kritik is a good strategy but is a better strategy against affs like LSA because if they were to read Kagan or realism evidence it would contradict their civil society solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good Foucault debater loves hitting any armed forces plan, first because the K turns case because if the sovereign has more means to its ends it encourages it to go to war. Secondly, because power retreats and responds it turns/mitigates case solvency depending on how well they answer it. And, as long as I'm packing answers to heg, it's not that hard of a debate to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a good Foucault debater loves hitting any armed forces plan, first because the K turns case because if the sovereign has more means to its ends it encourages it to go to war. Secondly, because power retreats and responds it turns/mitigates case solvency depending on how well they answer it. And, as long as I'm packing answers to heg, it's not that hard of a debate to win.

 

I think it's hard for the negative to win that structural violence against alterity/dean or any biopower impact is going to happen before 3 unique scenarios for extinction. I also think that if you try to claim any ontology/no value to life arguments, imminent extinction will outweigh. And we all know who will win the probability debate. Even if you win your link it doesn't matter at the point that we'll all be extinct before we can realize your impacts. Our argument would be that it's good to go to war because that's key to heg lol, yes you link, good for you. If we just rejected biopower there would be a power vacuum and things would be infinitely worse, so yes, we advocate going to war. Most Foucault debaters will try to make this into a link, but that doesn't matter if you're behind on the impact debate. I'll answer the arguments that I would make against this aff on the heg bad debate because I don't know what your answers to heg are. I'd claim that it undermines training because it kills morale--troops become docile bodies- This argument is subsumed by the fact that they have empirically allowed the US to maintain hegemony, doesn't matter if they're just tools. Exinction o/w your no value to life claims. Endless wars, the elites will just set goals that go against our realist interest to maintain the ideology of the state- We advocate going to war whenever our hegemony is threated because otherwise we're fucked (cross-apply case.) Undead army arguments, state monitors and regulates soldiers to the point they lose their personal identity- Great, cross-apply the impact calculus, morality doesn't matter if we're all dead.

 

This is why, as I said above, running it as a superpower syndrome kritik is probably more strategic unless your a real hardcore Foucault debater and know you'll win no matter what aff you hit. I really think in terms of the topic running Foucault against LSA or any of the affs that have a shitty timeframe is a great strategy, but if the aff wins we all die if the plan doesn't happen now I think the negative is at a STRATEGIC disadvanatge, as we're talking about the best strategy against this aff. But to each their own, everyone has their own strategies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No unique reason a biopower kritik should be read against this aff. The hegemony links, like Lifton etc., are good but cards like Kagan, Ferguson, O'Kane etc. answer it back very well and case is an impact turn to the kritik. Yes, a good Foucault debater who runs this kritik all the time may opt to run it against this aff, but I don't see why it is the best strategy in the context of this case. I also think that if you really wanted to kritik heg then running a pull out of Iraq alternative with some Lifton solvency is more strategic in terms of avoiding some of the affs generic arguments. Nevertheless, a biopower kritik is a good strategy but is a better strategy against affs like LSA because if they were to read Kagan or realism evidence it would contradict their civil society solvency.

 

ok- here are the flaws in your argument.

while alot of good teams can win going hard right- not all do.

1. realism good and heg good are not the end all be all arguments

2. its strategic in this instance because you can neutralize/moot the entire aff/advs and win

3. a foucauldian critique of security can be used pretty strategically against this aff

4. who said i was reading lifton

5. a pull out of iraq alternative is retarted- thats impact turnable more so then ur generic biopower K

 

im not sayign this is the only or best strategy.

 

Now your LSA rant is retarted- yes your right they cant read realism cards but they can have nuanced defense of service learning and an engaged civil society which is a more persuasive impact turn then realism good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's hard for the negative to win that structural violence against alterity/dean or any biopower impact is going to happen before 3 unique scenarios for extinction. I also think that if you try to claim any ontology/no value to life arguments, imminent extinction will outweigh. And we all know who will win the probability debate. Even if you win your link it doesn't matter at the point that we'll all be extinct before we can realize your impacts. Our argument would be that it's good to go to war because that's key to heg lol, yes you link, good for you. If we just rejected biopower there would be a power vacuum and things would be infinitely worse, so yes, we advocate going to war. Most Foucault debaters will try to make this into a link, but that doesn't matter if you're behind on the impact debate. I'll answer the arguments that I would make against this aff on the heg bad debate because I don't know what your answers to heg are. I'd claim that it undermines training because it kills morale--troops become docile bodies- This argument is subsumed by the fact that they have empirically allowed the US to maintain hegemony, doesn't matter if they're just tools. Exinction o/w your no value to life claims. Endless wars, the elites will just set goals that go against our realist interest to maintain the ideology of the state- We advocate going to war whenever our hegemony is threated because otherwise we're fucked (cross-apply case.) Undead army arguments, state monitors and regulates soldiers to the point they lose their personal identity- Great, cross-apply the impact calculus, morality doesn't matter if we're all dead.

 

This is why, as I said above, running it as a superpower syndrome kritik is probably more strategic unless your a real hardcore Foucault debater and know you'll win no matter what aff you hit. I really think in terms of the topic running Foucault against LSA or any of the affs that have a shitty timeframe is a great strategy, but if the aff wins we all die if the plan doesn't happen now I think the negative is at a STRATEGIC disadvanatge, as we're talking about the best strategy against this aff. But to each their own, everyone has their own strategies.

 

dawg your whole try or die scenario is a new link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now your LSA rant is retarted- yes your right they cant read realism cards but they can have nuanced defense of service learning and an engaged civil society which is a more persuasive impact turn then realism good.

 

True, I think Gorham can really go either way though, depends on how the round goes down.

 

I understand my argument is a link, but if the affirmative wins the impact debate it doesn't matter. Furthermore, its more of a reason to reject the alternative than an attack on the biopower da. Your alternative functionally has the US disarm in the face of danger. Even if you win that you're going to change the way the US acts, you can't make the rest of the world act this way or be utopian. The peace won't be able to maintain itself and in the absence of US leadership other states will grab for power. The argument is more nuanced than you're making it out to be. In a world in which the US doesn't excercise leadership the exact genocides you're trying to prevent by rejecting biopower will be made possible because the US won't intervene, this turns your no value to life arguments because the US will just chill and let genocide go down. Your evidence doesn't say that biopower is some evil shit that needs to be eliminated, it says that it's an inevitable part of the world. You're not going to have any comparative evidence of a world with US hegemony versus a world without one. Furthermore, the alternative doesn't solve because even when the US tries to stick its head in the sand and avoid intervention, it is inevitably is forced to reengage in the system, but the price of delay is an unneeded violence and war. So really my arguments, though they're link turns, are really reasons the alternative doesn't solve. I really don't like getting into debates on cross-x though so IM me if you want to argue lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hegemony links, like Lifton etc., are good but cards like Kagan, Ferguson, O'Kane etc. answer it back very well and case is an impact turn to the kritik. .

 

I really think you're underestimating how good the A2: Kagan/Ferguson/etc are.... FYI: They are pretty damn good. Sorrry, that's just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, I think Gorham can really go either way though, depends on how the round goes down.

 

I understand my argument is a link, but if the affirmative wins the impact debate it doesn't matter. Furthermore, its more of a reason to reject the alternative than an attack on the biopower da. Your alternative functionally has the US disarm in the face of danger. Even if you win that you're going to change the way the US acts, you can't make the rest of the world act this way or be utopian. The peace won't be able to maintain itself and in the absence of US leadership other states will grab for power. The argument is more nuanced than you're making it out to be. In a world in which the US doesn't excercise leadership the exact genocides you're trying to prevent by rejecting biopower will be made possible because the US won't intervene, this turns your no value to life arguments because the US will just chill and let genocide go down. Your evidence doesn't say that biopower is some evil shit that needs to be eliminated, it says that it's an inevitable part of the world. You're not going to have any comparative evidence of a world with US hegemony versus a world without one. Furthermore, the alternative doesn't solve because even when the US tries to stick its head in the sand and avoid intervention, it is inevitably is forced to reengage in the system, but the price of delay is an unneeded violence and war. So really my arguments, though they're link turns, are really reasons the alternative doesn't solve. I really don't like getting into debates on cross-x though so IM me if you want to argue lol.

 

Again going for the warrants in the khalizad evidence isnt the end all be all of arguments. If you dont want me to argue with you, then I wont. But the strategic utility of going for "biopower" against a Heg aff is all you need to be up on is the impact debate- you have 13 minutes to answer there impact turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, as long as I'm packing answers to heg, it's not that hard of a debate to win.

 

Lol dude, if the aff is like 8 minutes of heg good and you have to win heg bad to win the debate, what was the point of even reading the K? Just go for heg bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol dude, if the aff is like 8 minutes of heg good and you have to win heg bad to win the debate, what was the point of even reading the K? Just go for heg bad.

 

you dont have to defend a world post plan, and you can moot the entire 1ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you dont have to defend a world post plan, and you can moot the entire 1ac.

 

Hasn't your entire argument been that with the K you have to defend against heg good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't your entire argument been that with the K you have to defend against heg good?

 

what do you mean...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...