Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrfreezer

End Strength Aff

Recommended Posts

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

 

Your inherency is scripted under the assumption that we currently have filled our end strength levels (the ones about to be accepted at 547k). Now, given that we're short that number by over 30k, and a drastic increase like that isn't likely, you'd have to win that 547k isn't enough to increase the number of persons in the Armed Forces. Keep in mind I'm not stumbling over my words here -- this is what you have to advocate. Now that is what doesn't make sense.

 

There's no reason why your plan > squo.

 

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.
This proves my first point. You either lose on T iin the scenario listed above or sacrifice your inherency. To be topical and ensure people join, you have to win that there is something in the squo that prevents that increase. Since you cannot do this (the facts point in the other direction, the squo would allow for a hefty increase, just no one wants to join) you have to admit you have no inherency in order to evaluate your plan against the squo. Which is a pretty bad standard for debate.

 

Also, if you interpret policy as a number, then I guess you can consider yourself topical. But in that case, you can't claim any advantages since you can't win that anyone will even join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your inherency is scripted under the assumption that we currently have filled our end strength levels (the ones about to be accepted at 547k). Now, given that we're short that number by over 30k, and a drastic increase like that isn't likely, you'd have to win that 547k isn't enough to increase the number of persons in the Armed Forces. Keep in mind I'm not stumbling over my words here -- this is what you have to advocate. Now that is what doesn't make sense.

 

There are hundreds of solvency advocates for reasons why expanding the army End Strength (to 600k) would lead to an increase in recruiting. Kagan, Boot, Kurtz etc.

 

There's no reason why your plan > squo.

 

600K > 512K(547K)

 

This proves my first point. You either lose on T iin the scenario listed above or sacrifice your inherency.

 

I am yet to lose on T this year ... Same with probably any team that runs end strength. You are missing a pretty critical distinction now, it is still INHERENT to increase the end strength from one number, to a higher number, regardless of whether a smaller increase is occurring now. Also, if we win any of the arguments above (or even what Steve said about the c/interps) T is pretty much not a compelling reason to reject people.

 

To be topical and ensure people join, you have to win that there is something in the squo that prevents that increase.

 

Military unattractive place to serve .. High OT's

 

 

Since you cannot do this (the facts point in the other direction, the squo would allow for a hefty increase, just no one wants to join) you have to admit you have no inherency in order to evaluate your plan against the squo. Which is a pretty bad standard for debate.

 

No.

 

Also, if you interpret policy as a number, then I guess you can consider yourself topical. But in that case, you can't claim any advantages since you can't win that anyone will even join.

 

Yeah, I don't think we will win any solvency either, even though several professors/people who spend a substantial amount of time RESEARCHING this probably will agree increasing the size of the Army, will increase the size of the Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your inherency is scripted under the assumption that we currently have filled our end strength levels (the ones about to be accepted at 547k). Now, given that we're short that number by over 30k, and a drastic increase like that isn't likely, you'd have to win that 547k isn't enough to increase the number of persons in the Armed Forces. Keep in mind I'm not stumbling over my words here -- this is what you have to advocate. Now that is what doesn't make sense.

 

Funny that you can tell me how my inherency is scripted. Especially since you are wrong.

 

Also, the reason that we aren't at 547k yet is that we just increased it to 547k like a month ago. Obviously, we didnt get THIRTY THOUSAND recruits in one month. Most estimates are that will take a year to two to fill. Our plan would take an additional 2-3 years on top of that to fill. But there is no logical interpretation of the word increase that requires it to be immediate, and if there were, no aff would meet it.

 

There's no reason why your plan > squo.

 

I don't know how much you know about military strategy, but the military usually plans for FUTURE CONTINGENCIES. The central claim of our aff is that the future of warfare will be defined by troop-intensive counter-insurgency operations, so the Army should start growing in order to be prepared. The status quo doesn't provide enough troops for that objective (547K isn't enough, becuase in order to maintain a 3 to 1 rotation schedule for 200K soldiers deployed, we need 600K).

 

 

Also, if you interpret policy as a number, then I guess you can consider yourself topical. But in that case, you can't claim any advantages since you can't win that anyone will even join.

 

I'm pretty confident we can win that people will join. You apparently aren't very deep into the literature on this question. The core solvency claim of our aff is that people are quiting/not joining becuase of high operational tempos (i.e. they have to be re-deployed to Iraq without having adequate time to rest at home because we don't have enough soldiers--this results in policies like stop-loss that devastate troop morale--committing to a larger Army resolves these morale and retention issues in addition to making the Army a more attractive place)

 

You still haven't answered a fundamental question: what do you think is an example of a topical aff under your interpretation? Because I guarantee you that the reason it is topical proves why end strength is topical. Increasing end strength is a recruiting mechanism just like lifting DADT or enacting short term enlistments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok for all who think that end strength is not topical u hav seen how this topic sux...the fact is there is no way WATEVER YOUR PLAN IS to assure an increase...so how can u b topical you allow more ppl in the program...from the 7week jrs. t file there are amazing cards on how increase can only be measured by a cap or end strength...so even if the "increase" they do the closest topical thing to it...yes even closer than draft (dogers arg)...and on inh. even tho there was a small increase that doesn't make them non-inh...the thing with this year its very easy to be inh. b/c there will always be one person who says we need more ppl...and the adv. are also always inh. b/c hegemony will always be on the brink of going down, and we are still in iraq and it is still not stable...i mean thats pretty much tru and will always b untill we withdraw from iraq or we are no longer a hege...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok for all who think that end strength is not topical u hav seen how this topic sux...the fact is there is no way WATEVER YOUR PLAN IS to assure an increase...so how can u b topical you allow more ppl in the program...from the 7week jrs. t file there are amazing cards on how increase can only be measured by a cap or end strength...so even if the "increase" they do the closest topical thing to it...yes even closer than draft (dogers arg)...and on inh. even tho there was a small increase that doesn't make them non-inh...the thing with this year its very easy to be inh. b/c there will always be one person who says we need more ppl...and the adv. are also always inh. b/c hegemony will always be on the brink of going down, and we are still in iraq and it is still not stable...i mean thats pretty much tru and will always b untill we withdraw from iraq or we are no longer a hege...

 

you can guarantee an increase-roll a governmental organization not listed in the res into one listed in the res. even if the people all resign, before they can, they have increased the number.

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.

 

lol.

 

Word.

 

Please, T and Inherency, every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a counterplan to raise endstrength above the aff's endstrength increase (I know RHSM's is 750,000 as opposed to Westminster's)? It seems like perms are severance and you just have to win better solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about a counterplan to raise endstrength above the aff's endstrength increase (I know RHSM's is 750,000 as opposed to Westminster's)? It seems like perms are severance and you just have to win better solvency.

 

if the cp is more than the aff than its plan plus so perm do the cp is plan plus the cp...not severance...the only way u could do something like this is to increase the end strength less than the aff does...but there is no real nb to doing that (spending or inflation u kinda hurt less but u still increase the number of ppl)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how much you know about military strategy, but the military usually plans for FUTURE CONTINGENCIES. The central claim of our aff is that the future of warfare will be defined by troop-intensive counter-insurgency operations, so the Army should start growing in order to be prepared. The status quo doesn't provide enough troops for that objective (547K isn't enough, becuase in order to maintain a 3 to 1 rotation schedule for 200K soldiers deployed, we need 600K).

Given that you are much more steeped within the literature than I am, do your solvency authors indicate that increased end strength numbers will actually change current military deployment mechanisms?

 

From anecdotal evidence that I've heard and conversations that I've had, the military has essentially lost every counterinsurgency war game they've done since 2000 and there are no major plans to rethink the 2 + 1 force deployment strategy.

 

Just curious, is all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have provided a resolutional basis to my interpretation. Whats yours?

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

This seems to me to indicate that the affirmative's policy must specifically increase the number serving. Raising the end strength is not a policy that does that anymore than giving free medicine to US citizens is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

This seems to me to indicate that the affirmative's policy must specifically increase the number serving. Raising the end strength is not a policy that does that anymore than giving free medicine to US citizens is.

 

then answer the same question I've asked like fourteen times. What is an example of a topical aff under your interpretation?

 

Given that you are much more steeped within the literature than I am, do your solvency authors indicate that increased end strength numbers will actually change current military deployment mechanisms?

 

From anecdotal evidence that I've heard and conversations that I've had, the military has essentially lost every counterinsurgency war game they've done since 2000 and there are no major plans to rethink the 2 + 1 force deployment strategy.

 

Just curious, is all...

 

I don't exactly understand what you are asking. So are you saying that if the Army had more troops it would just deploy more instead of rotating better? If so, then yes, we do have evidence which says the military wants a 3:1 rotation but doesnt have enough troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then answer the same question I've asked like fourteen times. What is an example of a topical aff under your interpretation?

 

Something like the draft, that mandated military service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't exactly understand what you are asking. So are you saying that if the Army had more troops it would just deploy more instead of rotating better? If so, then yes, we do have evidence which says the military wants a 3:1 rotation but doesnt have enough troops.

I meant more along engagement strategy (configuration and utilization of troops at flashpoints), but this answer will do. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something like the draft, that mandated military service.

 

so now you are just saying your interpretation is T-mandatory? besides--what about draft dodgers? its possible, although unlikely that a draft wouldn't cause an increase. the same is true for end strength, its possible, although unlikely, that we wouldn't meet the new number eventually.

 

besides, your interpretation is awful for debate. oh great, 1 aff. your interpretation also makes 2/6 of the organizations literally impossible to use, since there is no mechanism for a draft in either the citizen corps (which is purely unpaid volunteer cooperation) or the senior corps.

 

I don't even think i need to get into this T-debate anymore, since you've changed this T-violation from some specific objection with end strength to T-mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something like the draft, that mandated military service.

 

 

I mean I guess the only affs that would be T are like move the CIA into the Army or ... Put AmeriCorps into the Citizen Corps may be T under that interp(not your T-Mandatory-ish one the not assured increase T interp).. But the literature on that would be close to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you go for T against ES you lose. Period.

 

we have run this aff for a while, and the DAs that are good against it are RMA or F-22 DAs.

 

In terms of Ks security is always a classic choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean I guess the only affs that would be T are like move the CIA into the Army or ... Put AmeriCorps into the Citizen Corps may be T under that interp(not your T-Mandatory-ish one the not assured increase T interp).. But the literature on that would be close to none.

 

Consolidation aff's like these are infinitely more abusive than any incentive aff - the aff could literally consolidate any non-national service organization into 1 of the areas in the resolution and claim advantages of that consolidated entity. It's like consolidating the NSA with Citizen Corps and claiming advantages off why the NSA solves terrorism.

 

 

Also, this is a question for anybody that can answer it. Is there still good solvency for a 15 month enlistment aff if you don't increase the end strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consolidation aff's like these are infinitely more abusive than any incentive aff - the aff could literally consolidate any non-national service organization into 1 of the areas in the resolution and claim advantages of that consolidated entity. It's like consolidating the NSA with Citizen Corps and claiming advantages off why the NSA solves terrorism.

 

 

Also, this is a question for anybody that can answer it. Is there still good solvency for a 15 month enlistment aff if you don't increase the end strength?

 

first cosolidation affs are SUPER XTRA T...and it also explodes the topic to allow anyone to move any topical or non topical program into a topical program...

 

the answer 2 ur question is yes 15 month enlistment is still a good solvency mech...i mean hooch has rolled with this all year http://toccasebook.wikispaces.com/ check it out...also the usuall advantages to that kinda aff r hege(rma/troops) deterrence and cmr ect...it actually is a pretty good aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so now you are just saying your interpretation is T-mandatory? besides--what about draft dodgers? its possible, although unlikely that a draft wouldn't cause an increase. the same is true for end strength, its possible, although unlikely, that we wouldn't meet the new number eventually.

 

besides, your interpretation is awful for debate. oh great, 1 aff. your interpretation also makes 2/6 of the organizations literally impossible to use, since there is no mechanism for a draft in either the citizen corps (which is purely unpaid volunteer cooperation) or the senior corps.

 

I don't even think i need to get into this T-debate anymore, since you've changed this T-violation from some specific objection with end strength to T-mandatory.

 

I don't advocate "T-mandatory," you just asked for one example, and I gave it to you.

 

My interpretation is that the policy actually has to be responsible for the increase - it has to cause that increase. The draft, mandated recruitment, reclassification, are all good examples. End strength is not like those cases, because it is not the policy responsible for the increase.

 

And sure, my interpretation may be limiting. But it's better than allowing nuke North Korea or send money to Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey could anyone PM me a summary of what the case says? If you could even send me a 1AC w/ plan text would be awesometastic times a millon~<3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey could anyone PM me a summary of what the case says? If you could even send me a 1AC w/ plan text would be awesometastic times a millon~<3

look at the toc case book link i put up

the end strength aff says that were meeting recruitment requirements and ppl r lining up 2 join the armed forces...the only way to increase is to increase the statutory cap (the end strength)...this is key 2 making a larger armed forces...key to hege...BOOM usuall hege good impacts...kalilzad, ferguson...yada yada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't advocate "T-mandatory," you just asked for one example, and I gave it to you.

 

My interpretation is that the policy actually has to be responsible for the increase - it has to cause that increase. The draft, mandated recruitment, reclassification, are all good examples. End strength is not like those cases, because it is not the policy responsible for the increase.

 

Draft.

Mandated Recruitment? What does that even mean. Our aff mandates that the Army recruit? What on earth aff are you talking about.

Reclassification? Someone covered that above. That actually probably creates a worse number of affs.

 

Your interpretation basically makes every aff anyone has run on this topic non-topical--end strength (on army and the other parts of the military), dadt, 15 month, army corps of engineers (end strength), etc.

 

And sure, my interpretation may be limiting. But it's better than allowing nuke North Korea or send money to Africa.

 

Our interpretation doesnt allow those affs. Policy = authorization to increase and appropriation of funds. Our interpretation makes ONLY end strength affs topical, although they can be combined with a recruiting mechanism to meet the number (Like ES + 15 mo, or ES + DADT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the cp is more than the aff than its plan plus so perm do the cp is plan plus the cp...not severance...the only way u could do something like this is to increase the end strength less than the aff does...but there is no real nb to doing that (spending or inflation u kinda hurt less but u still increase the number of ppl)

So you could run a 600,000 End Strength CP against RHSM? All you need is spending or something and then win no solvency deficit.

 

I still think there's a case to be made for the 750,000 CP vs. Westminster. Increasing End Strength isn't like filling a cup with water - they set the bar at 600,000 and the CP sets it at 750,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you could run a 600,000 End Strength CP against RHSM? All you need is spending or something and then win no solvency deficit.

 

I still think there's a case to be made for the 750,000 CP vs. Westminster. Increasing End Strength isn't like filling a cup with water - they set the bar at 600,000 and the CP sets it at 750,000.

 

Yeah, you can CP for less. But there is no way you can CP for more.

 

Plan: Congress should increase the size of the Army to 600,000 and fund the increase.

 

CP: Congress should increase the size of the Army to 750,000 and fund the increase.

 

Permutation do both: Congress should increase the size of the Army to 600,000 and fund the increase. Congress should increase the size of the Army to 750,000 and fund the increase.

 

The CP just makes the plan obsolete. For example, you could think of the status quo as the CP to increase end strength to 547,000. The plan changes that to 600,000. The permutation changes that to 600,000, then changes it again to 750,000.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...