Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrfreezer

End Strength Aff

Recommended Posts

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.

 

The problem I have with that interpretation was addressed earlier. If that is the only standard for topicality, it means that "give food to the hungry" is topical - would the poor join the army if they starved and died? That sort of case is justified by that interpretation. I mean, I can see where you're coming from, and end strength would certainly be topical that way - but this is where my ground standard comes from. A gigantic number of cases are allowed, and the neg could never keep up with "give homes to the homeless in NYC."

 

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

 

I still have those other reasons, I was just arguing on the interpretational level right then. See above for what I mean - the limits standard is, I think, the most important for what I'm saying. Sure, other interpretations can make sense, but they seem to be too ambiguous to have any sort of restrictive limits.

 

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

 

I'm not arguing mine is the only one supported. I'd just like to see arguments against my interpretation, instead of arguments for Stephen's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Actually, as Stephen mentioned somewhere in this thread, there are numerous articles talking about how soldiers will join if the end strength is increased because of an immediate perception of lower operational tempos. Therefore, a substantial portion of the people will join due to the increase in end strength, not increased recruiting. Also, it is normal means to increase recruiting, incentives, etc. whenever there is a Congressionally authorized increase. This means that an emulation of policy should focus on the actual increase in end strength, similar to the debates that occurred when passing the supplemental funding for it this year. It is up to the DoD to come up with recruiting strategies and decide when to hire more recruiters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, as Stephen mentioned somewhere in this thread, there are numerous articles talking about how soldiers will join if the end strength is increased because of an immediate perception of lower operational tempos. Therefore, a substantial portion of the people will join due to the increase in end strength, not increased recruiting. Also, it is normal means to increase recruiting, incentives, etc. whenever there is a Congressionally authorized increase. This means that an emulation of policy should focus on the actual increase in end strength, similar to the debates that occurred when passing the supplemental funding for it this year. It is up to the DoD to come up with recruiting strategies and decide when to hire more recruiters.

 

Well, I can see where you're coming from, this is certainly not an unreasonable argument against what I'm saying. My point of view, though, is as I mentioned above - even if you win that the end strength increase "causes" the increase in the number serving, it's really not that the policy that is actually making/allowing people join. Recruiting (or similar admissions policies) would be - because the only way people can join the army after that perception of lower operational tempos would be to actually join - that's the action that's key.

 

If that justification is allowed, while not necessarily grammatically incorrect, it justifies all sorts of randomness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with that interpretation was addressed earlier. If that is the only standard for topicality, it means that "give food to the hungry" is topical - would the poor join the army if they starved and died? That sort of case is justified by that interpretation. I mean, I can see where you're coming from, and end strength would certainly be topical that way - but this is where my ground standard comes from. A gigantic number of cases are allowed, and the neg could never keep up with "give homes to the homeless in NYC."

 

Other words in the resolution check..also there would be no solvency advocate for the vast majority of those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, everyone hold up.

 

End Strength Is Mandated Recruitment. Definitionally. Thats what it is. Increasing the end strength to 600k is literally a command to the Army "you must increase to 600K." It doesnt have to occur immediately, but its literally impossible to cause anything immediate outside of reclassification, which is a set of bad affs without solvency advocates.

 

By the way. If you increase end strength and someone is like "I joined because I knew that with a bigger Army I wouldn't be forced into overdeployment and stoploss policies"--then wasn't the policy of raising end strength responsible for the increase?

 

I'm pretty sure you don't have a definition to support whatever difference there is between those things (of which there is none).

 

Now, how about nobody post anything about T anymore and give some actual strategies:

 

K route:

militarism/security/dumb Ks. they're all basically the same when it comes down to the Army unless you're gettin into nietzsche or something, which basically just becomes the der derian security K with value to life args anyway.

 

cp route;

restructure/rebalance/shorad/whatever

different funding--supplemental vs. permanent

 

das:

the politics

RMA

adventurism

 

case:

plenty to be said.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
End Strength Is Mandated Recruitment. Definitionally. Thats what it is. Increasing the end strength to 600k is literally a command to the Army "you must increase to 600K." It doesnt have to occur immediately, but its literally impossible to cause anything immediate outside of reclassification, which is a set of bad affs without solvency advocates.

 

Yeah, I'll halt the arguing, I just wanted to address this - maybe you know more than I do, but is the end strength really a legal minimum as well as maximum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a question: if raising end strength is the only way to be topical as an affirmative, under that interpretation, what about the SeniorCorps? you cant raise end strength on that, so you essentially rid an entire portion of the resolution.

 

correct me if im wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a question: if raising end strength is the only way to be topical as an affirmative, under that interpretation, what about the SeniorCorps? you cant raise end strength on that, so you essentially rid an entire portion of the resolution.

 

correct me if im wrong

 

Senior Corps' baseline is funding. They only allow funding for a certain amount of people. So earmarking funding for the increase of people in Senior Corps is the Senior Corps equivalent of an End Strength increase of the Army.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Corps' baseline is funding. They only allow funding for a certain amount of people. So earmarking funding for the increase of people in Senior Corps is the Senior Corps equivalent of an End Strength increase of the Army.

 

Yeah, if the definition of policy you're running is "authorization to act and funding" then "end strength" is not the only thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Corps' baseline is funding. They only allow funding for a certain amount of people. So earmarking funding for the increase of people in Senior Corps is the Senior Corps equivalent of an End Strength increase of the Army.

 

senior corps works differently. it's really just three separate organizations funded by one. senior corps doesn't work like the americorps/lsa, you can't "mandate" people join or allocate earmarked funding (and even if you do, this doesn't serve as a baseline - you can't legally require the SC to recruit through negative sanctions, ie mandated funding.) for example, the SC this fiscal year just cut its recruitment programs in favor of a more "serving gives your life value" program.

 

 

That said, I'm not sure what the impact is. Education about the SC is key to....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senior corps works differently. it's really just three separate organizations funded by one. senior corps doesn't work like the americorps/lsa, you can't "mandate" people join or allocate earmarked funding (and even if you do, this doesn't serve as a baseline - you can't legally require the SC to recruit through negative sanctions, ie mandated funding.) for example, the SC this fiscal year just cut its recruitment programs in favor of a more "serving gives your life value" program.

 

 

That said, I'm not sure what the impact is. Education about the SC is key to....

 

Corporation for National and Community Service, 06 (“Citizen Service Act - Enhancing Senior Corps”

http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/citizen_service_act_seniorcorps.asp)

 

The Administration urges the Congress to authorize a $50 million increase from last year's budget- the full funding of Senior Corps programs requested in the President's FY 2003 budget. This increase in funding will permit participation to increase from 500,000 seniors per year to 600,000. The funds have been requested under "Special Volunteer Programs," to permit flexibility in how the funds may be used.

 

 

It seems like Congress has to authorize money for all of Senior Corps to permit more participation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh.. I think it has something to do with "flexibility in how the funds may be used"

 

I don't really make this argument, but some teams that run Senior Corps/Citizen Corps do, so they could probably explain it better..

 

 

What I really want to know is how do you fund 100000 seniors on just 50 million? That's like, every senior costs 500 dollars a year to upkeep (plus all the, you know, civic engagement that they do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehh.. I think it has something to do with "flexibility in how the funds may be used"

 

I don't really make this argument, but some teams that run Senior Corps/Citizen Corps do, so they could probably explain it better..

 

 

What I really want to know is how do you fund 100000 seniors on just 50 million? That's like, every senior costs 50 dollars a year to upkeep.

 

I think the flexibility in funding was due to the way the funds were allocated and what they were put under. Maybe "special Volunteer programs" allow for more ways to use the funding? I honestly don't know.

 

And as for 100k seniors for 50 million, I am totally confused too. Haha.

 

But I think the funding is still the only way to increase participation. It seems like the only baseline Senior Corps has for determining how many people serve is based off of how much money they get. Just like End Strength is the way to determine how many people can be in the army or marines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'll halt the arguing, I just wanted to address this - maybe you know more than I do, but is the end strength really a legal minimum as well as maximum?

 

The End Strength is a "Recruitment Quota," i.e. the target that the Army is supposed to be recruiting towards. If the end strength is 600K, the Army gets enough funding for 600K troops and cannot use that funding for anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has the uniqueness for RMA taken a hit with Rumpsfield out of office?

 

is Nuc Subs DA, F-22 DA, Adventurism, solvency, T a good strat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok 1...gates is implementing RMA as rumseld was...2 nuke subs is a form of RMA...so is f-22...adventurism is also a good da 2 that aff...and T...is TERRIBLE against this aff. u will not win that end strength is not a good brightline for increase...a good 1nc would b something like

OSB cp (or something that solves hege)

adventurism

tix

hege bad...like hard core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok 1...gates is implementing RMA as rumseld was...2 nuke subs is a form of RMA...so is f-22...adventurism is also a good da 2 that aff...and T...is TERRIBLE against this aff. u will not win that end strength is not a good brightline for increase...a good 1nc would b something like

OSB cp (or something that solves hege)

adventurism

tix

hege bad...like hard core

 

fiating offshore balancing arguably means the permutation fiats through the link to adventurism by functionally banning intervention. thats up for debate, but given the sketchiness of the link to adventurism in the first place (the idea that Bush is going to start up another war right before the 08 election goes in the category of absurd from any standpoint) that probably tips the balance.

 

Gates actually does pose some uniqueness problems for RMA. He cut funds for the FCS by a significant degree as well as a bunch of other high-tech developments.

 

That being said. Don't run F-22 and Nuclear Subs. You can only tradeoff with one thing. An end strength increase doesnt cost enough to trade off with a substantial number of F-22s AND nuclear submarines, and its even questionable if it trades off with a substantial number of just one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said. Don't run F-22 and Nuclear Subs. You can only tradeoff with one thing. An end strength increase doesnt cost enough to trade off with a substantial number of F-22s AND nuclear submarines, and its even questionable if it trades off with a substantial number of just one of them.

 

Plus funding was just appropriated for nuclear submarines so argument that "subs are on the chopping block" is not true.

 

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=486356f2-1fb8-4bc6-abfa-4e9b12be8d6c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fiating offshore balancing arguably means the permutation fiats through the link to adventurism by functionally banning intervention. thats up for debate, but given the sketchiness of the link to adventurism in the first place (the idea that Bush is going to start up another war right before the 08 election goes in the category of absurd from any standpoint) that probably tips the balance.

 

Gates actually does pose some uniqueness problems for RMA. He cut funds for the FCS by a significant degree as well as a bunch of other high-tech developments.

 

That being said. Don't run F-22 and Nuclear Subs. You can only tradeoff with one thing. An end strength increase doesnt cost enough to trade off with a substantial number of F-22s AND nuclear submarines, and its even questionable if it trades off with a substantial number of just one of them.

personally this last year i was running osb comming as the squo...but u could definetly run it as a cp...b/c dude 1...perm links to all the nbs (hege, tix) b/c (as least how i ran it) the links were off of a perceptive increase or try to increase hegemony...osb doesnt do that...increasing the military does...also...its funcionally severence...osb would cut down teh use of our military and size...oposite of the plan...and with adventurism...i could c it probably 4 an iranian or nk invasion if there was the possibility or i will always advocate it in round...

 

with rma...gates has stated in his watever plan b4 that he not only wanted too increase the size of the mil...but he wanted 2 put a focus on a more equiped military force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
personally this last year i was running osb comming as the squo...but u could definetly run it as a cp...b/c dude 1...perm links to all the nbs (hege, tix) b/c (as least how i ran it) the links were off of a perceptive increase or try to increase hegemony...osb doesnt do that...increasing the military does...also...its funcionally severence...osb would cut down teh use of our military and size...oposite of the plan...and with adventurism...i could c it probably 4 an iranian or nk invasion if there was the possibility or i will always advocate it in round...

 

I don't want to be offensive. But just as a general comment, taking the extra minute or so to add grammar and punctuation to your posts would make them easier to read and probably increase your credibility.

 

1. The perm definitely links to politics, but not to heg bad. If you FIAT a change in US grand strategy towards Offshore Balancing, the plan doesn't overcome a change in the nature of GRAND STRATEGY, it just provides 100K troops to be used FOR offshore balancing. The permutation wouldn't be perceived as hegemonic, because the dramatic nature of re-orienting grand strategy towards offshore balancing overcomes specific policy changes.

 

2. It isn't severance. The plan doesnt fiat "use of our military." The permutation severs "hegemony" which is just an advantage to the plan, not a part of it. You can increase troops for the purpose of facilitating offshore balancing.

 

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about adventurism.

 

with rma...gates has stated in his watever plan b4 that he not only wanted too increase the size of the mil...but he wanted 2 put a focus on a more equiped military force...

 

Ok. Yes, he wants to provide equipment for troops. Thats different than Space Lasers, the FCS, or F-22s. That just proves that because he is dedicated to transformation and a troop increase that he will find useless programs (like the FCS) to cut instead of cutting the core technologies that your impact evidence would describe.

 

This case is still FX T.

 

1. And so is every aff on this shitty topic.

 

2. It's not. The resolution says "establish a policy increasing" not "establish an increase." The only thing that has to be immediate is the creation of a policy. The implementation of that policy doesn't have to occur "immediately." This is where the lines fall down on your "FX T" violation. When you institute the Draft, you have to authorize it, then have a lottery via selective service, then people have to show up to the Army. When you increase End Strength, you have to authorize the higher number, then the military accepts more applicants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, hence why i wouldn't run it as a cp. What I'm just saying IF I was, these would be the most probably kind of answers. Because when it comes down to the meat of the debate, you are 100% correct, and I honestly believe that it is so much easier to win that the status quo would lead to osb rather than trying to answer the perm.

1. The perm definitely links to politics, but not to heg bad. If you FIAT a change in US grand strategy towards Offshore Balancing, the plan doesn't overcome a change in the nature of GRAND STRATEGY, it just provides 100K troops to be used FOR offshore balancing. The permutation wouldn't be perceived as hegemonic, because the dramatic nature of re-orienting grand strategy towards offshore balancing overcomes specific policy changes.

 

2. It isn't severance. The plan doesnt fiat "use of our military." The permutation severs "hegemony" which is just an advantage to the plan, not a part of it. You can increase troops for the purpose of facilitating offshore balancing.

 

1. It probably wouldn't link to politics (only if you're running plan popular) because most likely, and the evidence goes this way, the cp is unpopular solving back the link argument

 

2. The way layne's lit supports osb it probably would be (FUNCTIONALLY) severance because although it is possible to increase and transition to offshore balancing, layne advocates a smaller and less interventional armed forces. On top of it increasing in the armed forces stops the transition, because the lit supports that only by jumping off the intervention and size army horse (like the ev. says were doing in the squo) can we transition into osb

 

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about adventurism.

Before u stated that u didn't think that bush would start up another war or attack. Like i agree with you there probably won't be an attack initiated by the powerless Bush, but in round ill win at least a risk of a link from more troops to a (1%) risk of an attack. It's what debate does, makes you advocate unlikely things.

 

Ok. Yes, he wants to provide equipment for troops. Thats different than Space Lasers, the FCS, or F-22s. That just proves that because he is dedicated to transformation and a troop increase that he will find useless programs (like the FCS) to cut instead of cutting the core technologies that your impact evidence would describe.

True, but despite that, hes not cutting it, and hes increasing it (at a small enough percent) that people will be able to generate a SMALL TINY RISK of uniquness

 

 

And down with the T stuff, I completely agree. Hellfish this aff is as topical as this piece of shit year can get. All you can demand from a plan is that it fiats the actual increase. AND on top of that a baseline like the cap or end strength could be the only interpretive way to see if there is an actual increase.

 

 

I don't want to be offensive. But just as a general comment, taking the extra minute or so to add grammar and punctuation to your posts would make them easier to read and probably increase your credibility.

 

:)

 

O yea and dude, i heard a rumor that you may be RAing at UM...is that true

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

They are increasing the capacity to serve, but not increasing the number of people serving.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...