Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrfreezer

End Strength Aff

Recommended Posts

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.

 

the thing is if its more it is the plan than just more...justifys the perm do the cp...b/c it encompasses the plan and solves watever nb

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't encompass the plan, because they are two completely different policies. I.e not adding stuff to the plan.

 

However there is no net benefit to the counterplan other than minimal solvency deficits. They'd have to go all in on the "you can't sever out of your numbers" for the permutation, which is an uphill battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draft.

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

 

Yeah, that's what I mean.

 

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

 

Depends on what your interpretation is, obviously - this isn't true if I can win you allow infinite cases.

 

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.

 

What's your point? I think that most of those cases were not topical and there's no harm to making them untopical, is there?

 

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).

 

Aside from the fact that the evidence you're referring to is awful,

 

First, "authorization to act and appropriation of funds" surely allows all the affs I was talking about. If the case is to feed Africa, the plan text could be "the United States federal government should provide all necessary funding so that food for Africa can be purchased and delivered to African natives." Another topical example would be "the United States federal government should legalize the use of biological warfare against enemy nations and put all necessary funding into developing a super-virus."

 

Second, other words in the resolution don't check what I'm talking about. Remember, my argument is that if the policy isn't what is causing the increase, it's not topical. If a particular case meets your interpretation and it can be proven that an increase somehow results, that would be topical. Just because you may think that the only topical cases are like end strength, doesn't mean they are.

 

Third, your interpretation doesn't clash with mine. I don't define a particular word; I may concede your interpretation of policy and just go for the fact that regardless of that interpretation, your policy is not what's causing the increase. If that is the 1NC violation, I don't see how your definition makes any sense as a response.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't encompass the plan, because they are two completely different policies. I.e not adding stuff to the plan.

 

However there is no net benefit to the counterplan other than minimal solvency deficits. They'd have to go all in on the "you can't sever out of your numbers" for the permutation, which is an uphill battle.

 

it's a plan+ policy... literally, plan plus 150000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean yea, you're probably right. I'm just saying what the person who is dumb enough to run this would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stuff

 

I really don't feel like having this debate with you. Your interpretation essentially allows 6 cases. Those cases suck. Aff flexibility is more important since you get your generic increase DAs anyways.

 

You keep repeating the same things without responding to a core set of defensive arguments that literally obliviate any reason you have why our aff is bad for your ground:

1) we cant be probabilistic unless the NEG challenges that the plan causes an increase. the 1ac explicitly says "we will meet the 600K increase." you are guaranteed EVERY DA to increasing that many people. the only way we can NOT cause an increase is if the NEGATIVE reads ev that we dont.

2) our interpretation is that you have to be an authorization to INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ARMY--this means EVERY AFF HAS TO INCREASE END STRENGTH. Even if we could increase end strength and fill that gap by increasing food or nuking north korea, you can always PIC out of the End Strength increase.

 

You can "permute" our interpretation but your interpretation still obliterates affirmative ground while our interpretation provides a fair balance of negative ground.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't feel like having this debate with you. Your interpretation essentially allows 6 cases. Those cases suck. Aff flexibility is more important since you get your generic increase DAs anyways.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that it's only six cases, because that's really not true (even if you believe that mandated service is the only topical case, there's still subsets).

 

You keep repeating the same things without responding to a core set of defensive arguments that literally obliviate any reason you have why our aff is bad for your ground:

 

I'll respond to these, though I don't know if you actually want me to.

 

1) we cant be probabilistic unless the NEG challenges that the plan causes an increase. the 1ac explicitly says "we will meet the 600K increase." you are guaranteed EVERY DA to increasing that many people. the only way we can NOT cause an increase is if the NEGATIVE reads ev that we dont.

 

First, that's probably an abuse of fiat. You're essentially fiating solvency by saying "plan will definitely work." Second, it's the same as saying "invade North Korea, and we'll defend that people will definitely join the army as a result." Sure, an increase is caused, but if that type of case is allowed, I think the ground argument is made.

 

2) our interpretation is that you have to be an authorization to INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ARMY--this means EVERY AFF HAS TO INCREASE END STRENGTH. Even if we could increase end strength and fill that gap by increasing food or nuking north korea, you can always PIC out of the End Strength increase.

 

If your interpretation is "the aff must increase the size of the army," you only allow one topical case. How is that better than mine again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry that you feel that it's only six cases, because that's really not true (even if you believe that mandated service is the only topical case, there's still subsets).

 

No solvency advocates for those affs. I dare you to produce a card that says we should draft xyz position.

 

 

First, that's probably an abuse of fiat. You're essentially fiating solvency by saying "plan will definitely work."

 

No, its called reading solvency evidence that our plan will cause an increase. The point is, you are guaranteed your DAs because we cant say in the 2AC "no link--people won't join as a response to increasing end strength." Do you have an impact to why mandatory is key. Apparently the only one you have so far is the unlimited number of solvency mechanisms, I'll answer that in a second.

 

Second, it's the same as saying "invade North Korea, and we'll defend that people will definitely join the army as a result." Sure, an increase is caused, but if that type of case is allowed, I think the ground argument is made.

 

But there is no advantages based off actually increasing. This means you can just CP to invade North Korea but not defend that people join the Army. Becuase our interpretation REQUIRES raising end strength in the plan, if they do End Strength + Something Random (Invade NK, whatever), you can always CP to just do something random and the aff can never win that debate. Because those affs are unstrategic, the topic will have a natural cap on case explosion.

 

 

 

If your interpretation is "the aff must increase the size of the army," you only allow one topical case. How is that better than mine again?

 

No, because we allow End Strength + Recruiting Mechanism. (Ex. Raise End Strength, do DADT/15 Month/Foreign Nationals/whatever). Even so--that ground is better because

a) there is literature on component specific end strength increases--i.e. increase end strength of air force, increase end strength of marines, increase end strength of Army. There isn't comparable literature for targetted drafts.

B) its not mandatory--the draft is an awful aff strategically because there is a limited evidence base (like only 3 solvency advocates for the policy version and 3 maybe for the K version) and its so gut-reaction a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No solvency advocates for those affs. I dare you to produce a card that says we should draft xyz position.

 

A solvency advocate for the draft is unnecessary - you just need a solvency advocate for why increasing the number of people is good.

 

No, its called reading solvency evidence that our plan will cause an increase. The point is, you are guaranteed your DAs because we cant say in the 2AC "no link--people won't join as a response to increasing end strength." Do you have an impact to why mandatory is key. Apparently the only one you have so far is the unlimited number of solvency mechanisms, I'll answer that in a second.

 

That's far different from guaranteeing the increase in plan text, which is what you said last time. And I still don't see why you're debating the DA ground - I haven't even mentioned that at all.

 

But there is no advantages based off actually increasing. This means you can just CP to invade North Korea but not defend that people join the Army. Becuase our interpretation REQUIRES raising end strength in the plan, if they do End Strength + Something Random (Invade NK, whatever), you can always CP to just do something random and the aff can never win that debate. Because those affs are unstrategic, the topic will have a natural cap on case explosion.

 

Sure there are - the aff could read any generic advantage as to why increasing the number of people is good (Iraq, heg, etc.). Any CP out of the increase loses those advantages, and if you have to then win competition by the net benefits outweighing, the CP probably wasn't competitive in the first place, and even if it was, it's irrelevant to the topicality debate.

 

No, because we allow End Strength + Recruiting Mechanism. (Ex. Raise End Strength, do DADT/15 Month/Foreign Nationals/whatever). Even so--that ground is better because

a) there is literature on component specific end strength increases--i.e. increase end strength of air force, increase end strength of marines, increase end strength of Army. There isn't comparable literature for targetted drafts.

B) its not mandatory--the draft is an awful aff strategically because there is a limited evidence base (like only 3 solvency advocates for the policy version and 3 maybe for the K version) and its so gut-reaction a bad idea.

 

First, things like DADT and foreign nationals are extratopical under your interpretation of authorization to act and appropriation of funds.

 

Second, those things are topical under my interpretation - all of the advantages to increasing the end strength lie in increasing the number serving, so it's irrelevant (for the most part) how the people join.

 

Third, again, I don't advocate just the draft. Any case specifically responsible for the increase and that is the actual policy causing the increase is topical. I'm actually doing a logical read-through of the resolution; any other interpretation is contrived and there isn't much of a basis for it. Sure, things like end strength are core cases, but that doesn't mean they ought to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A solvency advocate for the draft is unnecessary - you just need a solvency advocate for why increasing the number of people is good.

 

No, because if you don't have a solvency advocate for the draft you automatically lose to CP: provide incentives for that group of people.

 

 

 

That's far different from guaranteeing the increase in plan text, which is what you said last time. And I still don't see why you're debating the DA ground - I haven't even mentioned that at all.

 

I'm debating DA ground becuase you don't have an IMPACT to your interpretation. You can't just win T debates on "yo dawg, this is what the rez means"--you need to have, you know, reasons why your interpretation is better. Even if you want to say the reason your interpretation is better is that its a more logical reading of the rez

a) our interpretation is still based on a definition of words in the rez

B) the only impact to that is predictability which is just an internal link to ground that is INEVITABLE under our interpretation

 

 

 

Sure there are - the aff could read any generic advantage as to why increasing the number of people is good (Iraq, heg, etc.). Any CP out of the increase loses those advantages, and if you have to then win competition by the net benefits outweighing, the CP probably wasn't competitive in the first place, and even if it was, it's irrelevant to the topicality debate.

 

They why does it matter? If the ONLY THING THE AFF CAN DEFEND relative to the CP are advantages based off an INCREASE (and not the random action they took) then YOU GET BACK TO SQUARE ZERO and you have all your ground because the mechanism the aff used to get to an increase became LITERALLY IRRELEVANT. Because these affs are therefore not remotely strategic, there is no risk of them being run because offsets devastates them.

 

 

First, things like DADT and foreign nationals are extratopical under your interpretation of authorization to act and appropriation of funds.

 

Nah--our interpretation says thats the policy and there is implementation after that. The implementation could be a draft, foreign nationals, DADT, 15 months whatever. The aff doesn't have to specify that, but could in order to change advantage ground. Even if they don't

 

a) you can raise end strength on multiple organizations (Air Force, Marines, etc), but there is no solvency advocate for targetted drafts--this makes the ground under our interpretation better for the aff

B) its not mandatory--which is better ground for the aff.

 

Second, those things are topical under my interpretation - all of the advantages to increasing the end strength lie in increasing the number serving, so it's irrelevant (for the most part) how the people join.

 

All of those things are T under your intepretation? No they aren't, they aren't a "policy responsible for an increase" or whatever the hell your stupid interpretation is.

 

Third, again, I don't advocate just the draft. Any case specifically responsible for the increase and that is the actual policy causing the increase is topical.

 

What does that mean? Any case responsible for the increase. Well, raising end strength is specifically responsible for the increase. If you really want to say there are more affs, then provide a SINGLE GOD-DAMNED EXAMPLE of ANY OTHER AFF YOU THINK IS T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just wanna throw this out there FOR AN AFF U ALWAYS NEED A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE...ALWAYS...or it justifys cps w/o any solvency advocate wich lets u fiat that plan/cp solve...VERY BAD 4 DEBATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no army aff should ever win because it like totally fuels the imperalist project. duh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A solvency advocate for the draft is unnecessary - you just need a solvency advocate for why increasing the number of people is good.

 

thanks for proving stephen's argument

 

There's several reasons why ES meets your interpretation and is basically the resolution in itself, i'll outline a few:

 

1) Like you said, the aff has only the burden to prove why an increase in people as good as long as they a) defend an increase and/or B) provide ev that says the plan will lead to an increase (thus y your interpretation is basically asinine)

 

2) Resolution isnt a question of "how"--the purpose of the topic is for the affirmative to prove why an increase is good, not prove that their increase will work. Your interpretation of how the topic should work is degenerate; basically 8 minutes of significance in the 2NC followed by 5 of T in the 1NR about how the affirmative's mechanism wont itself cause an increase meaning no T and no significance (o shit)

 

3) The word "number" in the resoluton (someone pointed this out earlier, i think it was synergy) proves ES is the most topical case; yes it says "increase" to but the word number still proves that what should be talked about is the overall size of the service in question.

 

4) There is no ground under T mandatory; the draft/universal service and LSA would be the only affirmatives on the topic. Going back to your earlier quote, absent solvency advocates under your interpretation means zero literature on any of the affs outside LSA and the military which means we lose 2/3 of the topic just so you can run coercion every round.

 

Just out of curiosity, how many people in here actually go for T against end strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been for T and picked up against End Strength due to 15 month enlistments.

 

I picked up on Increase = Mandate lolz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I picked up on Increase = Mandate lolz.

is that like they have 2 fiat the increase...or they have 2 b manditory...or they have 2 actually use the word mandate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay - my interpretation is simply that the only topical cases are policies that increase the number serving.

 

1) Like you said, the aff has only the burden to prove why an increase in people as good as long as they a) defend an increase and/or B) provide ev that says the plan will lead to an increase (thus y your interpretation is basically asinine)

 

I never said the aff has the burden of proof of an increase being good - I was only referring to the aff being able to prove it solves for its advantages. To win heg good, you don't need to win draft good, just that increased number of people in the military is good. The solvency debate is really irrelevant on the topicality argument - and there's no point in mixing the burdens anyway.

 

2) Resolution isnt a question of "how"--the purpose of the topic is for the affirmative to prove why an increase is good, not prove that their increase will work. Your interpretation of how the topic should work is degenerate; basically 8 minutes of significance in the 2NC followed by 5 of T in the 1NR about how the affirmative's mechanism wont itself cause an increase meaning no T and no significance (o shit)

 

If the affirmative only has to prove an increase is good, it goes back to my point about how there are literally an infinite number of cases that are topical, because all the aff has to do is make the argument that in some way, they cause an increase.

 

Topicality is about the "letter" of the resolution, not the "spirit." The point of my interpretation is that I'm literally reading the resolution as it is, and determining what should be topical, from that. I wouldn't say that my world would be bad; if I'm defending that things like the draft and mandated recruitment are topical, then obviously I wouldn't get up against those cases and go for topicality, because I had already stated those cases were alright.

 

3) The word "number" in the resoluton (someone pointed this out earlier, i think it was synergy) proves ES is the most topical case; yes it says "increase" to but the word number still proves that what should be talked about is the overall size of the service in question.

 

I sincerely doubt that. "Number," in this case, modifies "of people serving." The "size" of the army, or "legal limit," is far different from the actual number serving. Any other interpretation is arbitrary, really. I don't see why we should make things more complicated than they are; the resolution says "number of people serving," and the way you are attempting to read it is not what one would normally do.

 

4) There is no ground under T mandatory; the draft/universal service and LSA would be the only affirmatives on the topic. Going back to your earlier quote, absent solvency advocates under your interpretation means zero literature on any of the affs outside LSA and the military which means we lose 2/3 of the topic just so you can run coercion every round.

 

Topical cases under my interpretation:

 

- The draft/mandated service in each of the six NSPs or their subsets, or a combination

- Mandated recruitment/incentives (i.e. mandate that the Coast Guard recruits 15,000 people, or that the NCCC hires 2,000 people).

- Reclassification affirmatives (i.e. move NASA into the Air Force).

 

I never said some cases don't have solvency advocates, just that an advocate for your specific mechanism is not necessary to win that you solve the advantage.

 

Stephen said that this would mean people would lose a counterplan to change the mechanism; but his example seems kind of wrong - I doubt that the neg could win that the draft would get less people to serve than incentives.

 

Also, it's not like there's no literature on the draft and its effectiveness.

 

Finally, Stephen, I'm attempting just to have a (relatively) civil discussion on the merits of this topicality issue. I don't understand what you're getting so angry about; if you think I'm wrong, you don't have to answer me, and also, there is no real point in arguing - if you don't want to respond, no one's forcing you to.

 

I'm only engaging in this discussion because I like seeing what the arguments people will make in the round are, and also to see what their responses to my responses are. After all, who "wins" or "loses" on here is irrelevant, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Topical cases under my interpretation:

 

- Mandated recruitment/incentives (i.e. mandate that the Coast Guard recruits 15,000 people, or that the NCCC hires 2,000 people).

I fail to see how end-strength dosn't fit into this catagory. And even if "raise the end strength" dosn't how does "raise the end-strength and fully fund the increase" or "raise the end-strength and do X insentive in order to meet it" not meet? Saying that given the means and option the armed forces would not recruit everyone they can is stupid. Furthermore what good does a mandate to recruit 53,000 people into the army do if the end-strength is not raised and thus the army cannot legally do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, this debate is retarded. Einstein is just splitting hairs, and has no defense of his interpretation substantivly because weil slayed him on the standards debate.

 

Einstein has not given a reason why his is the only correct reading of the topic, he just keeps asserting that, when stephen has given him definitional reason to believe other policies can "substantially increase the number of persons serving" without being the fucking draft, or "mandated hiring" or "reclassification affs", which einstein has not answered stephens (true) argument that those affs suck.

 

This debate is over, its just the rehashing of played arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how end-strength dosn't fit into this catagory. And even if "raise the end strength" dosn't how does "raise the end-strength and fully fund the increase" or "raise the end-strength and do X insentive in order to meet it" not meet? Saying that given the means and option the armed forces would not recruit everyone they can is stupid. Furthermore what good does a mandate to recruit 53,000 people into the army do if the end-strength is not raised and thus the army cannot legally do it?

 

Well, I think the end strength part of it is non-topical. My interpretation stems from the fact that I assume that fiat overrides legal barriers like the end strength (a case like the draft would obviously have to assume that end strength was increased for the army, otherwise you'd have to have infinitely regressive plan texts). So, if we mandated that the army recruited 100,000 people, it would only make sense that end strength would inherently be raised for this increase. I think, though, adding it to your plan text makes it extratopical.

 

That's a much different debate, though. If the plan text was something like "Raise the end strength and mandate that the army recruits 50,000 people," that would probably be more topical - but no one does that.

 

dude, this debate is retarded. Einstein is just splitting hairs, and has no defense of his interpretation substantivly because weil slayed him on the standards debate.

 

Einstein has not given a reason why his is the only correct reading of the topic, he just keeps asserting that, when stephen has given him definitional reason to believe other policies can "substantially increase the number of persons serving" without being the fucking draft, or "mandated hiring" or "reclassification affs", which einstein has not answered stephens (true) argument that those affs suck.

 

This debate is over, its just the rehashing of played arguments.

 

I don't think you're understanding the basis of my argument. I am not arguing with what Stephen is saying on the interpretational level - my argument is that it doesn't matter what a policy is. If I can prove that the aff's policy is not the one causing the increase, then I'm winning my argument.

 

Up to this point, my reading of the resolution is the correct one only because no one else has been answering this point. What I said earlier, and what I'm sticking to, is that if you raise the end strength, it is recruiting that is causing the increase, not the act of raising the end strength itself. Thus, "raise the end strength" is not topical. "Recruit 50,000 people" is topical, because that is actually the policy that gets people to join.

 

You're certainly right about it being just a rehashing of the same thing. I think having a fight over this is unnecessary - but the only reason I'm continuing is because I don't think anyone has been answering this fundamental level of this argument, and I'd like to see what peoples' responses are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, ask yourself this useful question when asessing a topical plan under your interpretation "would the increase in troops following an increase in end strength have happened if the plan did not happen?"

 

Seeing as the answer is obviously no, then it meets your interprettion in your last post (does the plan cause the increase). Sure, recruiting may have caused some of the increase, but that is enabled by the plan.

 

You also have not responded to the claim that, you cant just win T by saying "the rez means X". You need reasons why thats good.

 

Also the rez does not support only your interpretation, see above.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...