Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrfreezer

End Strength Aff

Recommended Posts

sorry...another aff case question...

 

At last week's tournament, my partner and i also went against an end strength aff that expands the military's end strength. This is what we ran...

 

Increase T

Fed Gov. T

Generic DA - spending and overstrech

 

I wonder what other strategies we can use if we go against another end strength aff again? Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at long beach i hit two end strength affs. we won both. the first round we ran a crap load of on case and turned every advantage. the second round, we ran RMA and CMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inherency (Don't hurt me, its actually a compelling argument here)

PTix

CMR

RMA

Adventurism

K of Hege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry...another aff case question...

 

At last week's tournament, my partner and i also went against an end strength aff that expands the military's end strength. This is what we ran...

 

Increase T

Fed Gov. T

Generic DA - spending and overstrech

 

I wonder what other strategies we can use if we go against another end strength aff again? Thx.

 

Why would you run T increase against End-Strength...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry...another aff case question...

 

At last week's tournament, my partner and i also went against an end strength aff that expands the military's end strength. This is what we ran...

 

Increase T

Fed Gov. T

Generic DA - spending and overstrech

 

I wonder what other strategies we can use if we go against another end strength aff again? Thx.

Like evan said : Inherency

 

Militarism

 

Spending

 

Heg.

 

T-mandate or FX (endstrenght= not immediate)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you run T increase against End-Strength...

 

 

The aff is only expanding the end strength of the military without guarantee of personnel increase.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The aff is only expanding the end strength of the military without guarantee of personnel increase.

they increase the number of persons serving

 

the point of the rez isn't to increase persons serving, rather their number

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they increase the number of persons serving

 

the point of the rez isn't to increase persons serving, rather their number

 

are you being serious? that interps bad.. you can't increase persons; the word "number" makes the rez grammatically correct. It still means you have to increase how many people are serving.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

end strength is a legal mandate on AF troop levels

 

increasing is a process, not something immediate. under your logic, no aff is topical because after the draft everyone could just draft dodge. not likely? well neither is it likely that people wouldn't join under an end strength increase.

 

the word "policy" in the rez implies the authorization to act and the appropriation of funds--in terms of a "policy" increasing the number of people in the AF, this contextually means an end strength increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this contextually means recruiting or admissions policies. The fact that an end strength increase has nothing to do with the actual number serving is proved by the fact that we are nowhere near the current end strength level. The end strength is not about how many people are serving but about how many people legally can serve.

 

Of course, you can make the argument that the least arbitrary way to determine the current level is end strength - but that is slightly moot when we have an end strength of like 547,000 and we have less than 510,000 serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this contextually means recruiting or admissions policies. The fact that an end strength increase has nothing to do with the actual number serving is proved by the fact that we are nowhere near the current end strength level. The end strength is not about how many people are serving but about how many people legally can serve.

 

Exactly, most cases are based on an intent of higher recruitment. End strength only increases the capability but does not serve to fulfill that capability, while a draft or most other cases do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End strength really bites f/x T -- pretty much all the arguments the aff will make against T can be cross-applied onto YOUR inherency flow (since we aren't meeting levels now) and solvency flow (can't prove increased end strength will do anything specific) and then you win advocating status quo.

 

Pretty much what einsteinthe12th said, ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this contextually means recruiting or admissions policies. The fact that an end strength increase has nothing to do with the actual number serving is proved by the fact that we are nowhere near the current end strength level. The end strength is not about how many people are serving but about how many people legally can serve.

 

Of course, you can make the argument that the least arbitrary way to determine the current level is end strength - but that is slightly moot when we have an end strength of like 547,000 and we have less than 510,000 serving.

 

we havent passed the 547 bill

 

our end strength is 512k, we're at a little about 510K.

 

Exactly, most cases are based on an intent of higher recruitment. End strength only increases the capability but does not serve to fulfill that capability, while a draft or most other cases do.

 

I think your username suits you.

 

If you didnt increase end strength, none of those other cases would actually increase because they would just tradeoff within the current legal end strength caps. Even if you implemented a draft, we couldnt have more than 512k people in the army unless you increase end strength.

 

besides, this is irrelevant if 2 arguments are true

1) policy = authorization to act and appropriation of funds

2) increase = process, its ongoing

 

the resolution therefore demands that you set a goal (increase to 600k, etc) and provide a way of meeting it (budgetary allocations for more equipment, etc, plus decreasing op tempos = better perception of army, more people join, higher retention, etc)

 

the resolution doesnt demand that you cause an immediate increase, or no aff is topical.

 

besides, what ground can you possibly lose

 

a) its not probablistic--the aff has made the claim in the 1ac that the plan will result in 600k people, you are GUARANTEED every DA link to having 600k people unless YOU choose to contest the claim that the plan would cause an increase.

 

B) allocating money immediately guarantees all your spending/rma/politics links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, I take back everything I said. Please, everyone go for T against end strength.

 

I'm sure all the nice folks out there running this aff would appreciate a bye every once and a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we havent passed the 547 bill

 

irrelevant -- the bill just provides funding, end strength itself (as a numebr to grow to) has been increase for the army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we havent passed the 547 bill

 

and then you win advocating status quo.

 

:)

 

Anyway,

I really hate this attitude. The idea that one can win by advocating an otherwise useless plan and claim huge advantages like heg and terrorism when there's no freaking inherency for the case. Has debate really become so dissociated from its roots that all that matters are the super-generic impacts not the actual logic that goes behind the case?

 

Inherency is too often brushed aside as just needing to pick up a crappy bit of Existential evi from X mass media source the night before the tournament. However, the amount of education and depth of research lost here is overwhelming. I think debate would be a much better institution if people would actually work on the foundation of thier plan not just trying to find the easiest route to an extinction impact.

 

I don't think I'm alone here in believing that this circumvents any real-world knowledge that debate would otherwise give you. Real policy debaters don't think in terms of, "let's see what can we do today to avoid global nuclear war?"

 

[/rant]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)

 

Anyway,

I really hate this attitude. The idea that one can win by advocating an otherwise useless plan and claim huge advantages like heg and terrorism when there's no freaking inherency for the case. Has debate really become so dissociated from its roots that all that matters are the super-generic impacts not the actual logic that goes behind the case?

 

Inherency is too often brushed aside as just needing to pick up a crappy bit of Existential evi from X mass media source the night before the tournament. However, the amount of education and depth of research lost here is overwhelming. I think debate would be a much better institution if people would actually work on the foundation of thier plan not just trying to find the easiest route to an extinction impact.

 

I don't think I'm alone here in believing that this circumvents any real-world knowledge that debate would otherwise give you. Real policy debaters don't think in terms of, "let's see what can we do today to avoid global nuclear war?"

 

[/rant]

 

our aff increases end strength far above 547k. how is it not inherent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we havent passed the 547 bill

 

our end strength is 512k, we're at a little about 510K.

 

Still, the point is the same. Raising the end strength doesn't increase the number of people serving, people joining does.

 

If you want to say that end strength is a policy that causes people to join, you might as well say that giving starving people food is topical as well, because then they will survive and not die, and it will give them the means to possibly join the military.

 

Obviously having this topicality debate on the forum is pointless. Still, though, I just think it's dumb to actually defend what you are saying on here, because it's patently false.

 

I'm not sure whether you are arguing the "increase" side or the "policy" side, but they are similar arguments. Raising the end strength certainly makes an increase possible and likely - but that does not make it the policy that is increasing the number serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. Take your pick -- either you're topical or inherent. My argument is that by answering T you concede to the inherency flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, the point is the same. Raising the end strength doesn't increase the number of people serving, people joining does.

it's kind of silly, but a close reading of the resolution doesn't actually say there should be more people in national service. Just that their statistical number should be greater. all the aff has to do to be T is change a number (which measures persons serving) in congressional record books.

 

besides, the military has met recruiting goals and most projections are that it will meet the gates proposal. it's not like the aff will no link your budget da...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's kind of silly, but a close reading of the resolution doesn't actually say there should be more people in national service. Just that their statistical number should be greater. all the aff has to do to be T is change a number (which measures persons serving) in congressional record books.

 

end strength is not equivalent to the number of people serving; it is only the capacity for such an increase. The "statistical number" relates only to the people that join post-plan.

 

Also, your interp ruins debate. Allows affirmatives to defend a mere number rather than an actual increase, which is what advantages come from..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O.K. Take your pick -- either you're topical or inherent. My argument is that by answering T you concede to the inherency flow.

 

that makes no sense. current end strength is 547k. we make it 600k.

 

Also, your interp ruins debate. Allows affirmatives to defend a mere number rather than an actual increase, which is what advantages come from..

 

first, what do you think is a topical aff? the draft? if you think something like short term enlistments or dadt is T then

a) those affs dont actually cause an increase without raising end strength (even if thats normal means of the plan, mr synergy)

B) increasing end strength is also an incentive for people to join, because having a larger army decreases operational tempos

 

second, our aff defends an actual increase. our advantages come from it. your disads come from it. its not a probablistic increase because we have explicitly said in the 1ac that we will get 100k more people to join. the only way we can "no link" your DAs by saying that there isnt an "actual" increase is if YOU make that argument. so just read your DAs, and we LITERALLY CANNOT no link them.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...