Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest silvermdc1

Coast Guard Specific

Recommended Posts

Guest silvermdc1

Besides a bunch of T and case what specific Arguments would you run against a Coast Guard case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really depends upon the advantages but there are a couple of good CPs that can be run against it. Also, any type of K that links to military action would work. As for T, my $3 file has an awesome subsets T violation in it that has pre-written out blocks and can win you the round by itself...

 

 

Here's the link...

http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10487

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sec k is good

solvency deficet: search deepwater, its a huge waste of money and its fucking up huge time.

Havent lost on T all year and i run this case, its pretty easy to win the subsets debate, because most say it would allow for over 800 subsets, but it is clearly one of the 5 organizations in the armed forces, and it is easy to win that its reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its also not inherent and you can read some inherency as an advantage takeout, not actually trying to win on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

few different things that you can run

I've hit this case twice this year, and beaten the exact same team with the exact same strat:

T-not part of armed forces

Fisheries DA/turn with econ impact

'tix

1.5-2 minutes of solvency

recruitment turn

$

T-increasing (just for kicks)

Heg bad

inherency

or

borders K

solvency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude...heres a strat

navy reserves offsets

tix

wage inflation

hege bad

case defence

 

how/why would you offset from the navy reserves to the Coast Guard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how/why would you offset from the navy reserves to the Coast Guard?
how legislation

why 1. avoids tix, and wage inflation

2. navy said they have like a SHIT LOAD OF EXTRA pre-trained reservist...and their training is very similar to that o the cg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This type of counterplan proves why solvency advocate is a good standard to have for PICs. And btw, the CP links as much to politics; I doubt you can win a clear link that delineates between transferring from the Navy and just getting new recruits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This type of counterplan proves why solvency advocate is a good standard to have for PICs. And btw, the CP links as much to politics; I doubt you can win a clear link that delineates between transferring from the Navy and just getting new recruits.

 

If you can prove solvency without an advocate it shouldn't matter. And I don't think this even qualifies as a PIC..

 

And actually, the tix evidence is very good in talking about how new coast guard legislation for more funding/personnel is perceived politically. Transferring personnel which aren't used anyway and who are already trained won't be perceived in the same way. It only takes simple analytics to make that point, but it doesn't matter anyway because they're numerous other netbenefits to not implementing direct increase in recruitment (such as wage inflation mentioned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can prove solvency without an advocate it shouldn't matter.

 

You missed the point. It's less a question of solvency than a question of predictability and neg bias. Nobody is questioning whether fiating Navy reserves into the Coast Guard would solve as an increase mechanism, because of course it would, but the issue of whether it is feasible as a real policy certainly is raised. It also opens a pandora's box of issues with competitive equity--the concern that allowing this means that the neg can take any person from any organization, be it government or not, and fiat them into the Coast Guard. Unless you are willing to defend that research burden, the solvency advocate criterion seems reasonable. Conversely if the aff has a squirrelly case, the neg's burden of solvency advocate scales back as well, ensuring a fair division of predictability. Your tolerance of counterplans seems myopic in the sense that the neg can just get away with too much.

 

And I don't think this even qualifies as a PIC..

 

This seems rather tripe in light of the fact that the counterplan is everything the affirmative does with the exception of a different solvency mechanism. I guess this isn't a PIC if agent CPs arent PICs either. The only legitimate argument that could be inferred is that, as an offset, it tests the affirmative's adherence to the resolution. However, as it does cause an increase within the Coast Guard, the offset refers only to not recruiting new people, not not increasing within the Coast Guard.

 

And actually, the tix evidence is very good in talking about how new coast guard legislation for more funding/personnel is perceived politically. Transferring personnel which aren't used anyway and who are already trained won't be perceived in the same way. It only takes simple analytics to make that point, but it doesn't matter anyway because they're numerous other netbenefits to not implementing direct increase in recruitment (such as wage inflation mentioned).

 

Of course politics links deal with increasing personnel within the Coast Guard. However, you've functionally conceded that no author will advocate that offsetting from Navy reserves would cost less political capital. You, as you admittedly pointed out, are left with analytics to piece the two together. Again, the issue of competitive equity is raised. Apart from training, there is no unique reason as to why Navy reserves are in the unique position to be of benefit to the Coast Guard. Reading politics with this "counterplan" takes a mile-wide leap of faith and just encourages the neg trying to pop the aff with a random, generic strategy that has no merit in a policy paradigm, something you submit to when offering a counterplan. As to the issue of wage inflation, the bar of a solvency advocate should once again be applied. Although the argument might be true in certain contexts, I don't believe that a generic piece of evidence that nowhere mentions the Navy, the Coast Guard, or the Navy and Coast Guard should be enough for you to consider this a legitimate net benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to the issue of wage inflation, the bar of a solvency advocate should once again be applied. Although the argument might be true in certain contexts, I don't believe that a generic piece of evidence that nowhere mentions the Navy, the Coast Guard, or the Navy and Coast Guard should be enough for you to consider this a legitimate net benefit.

 

seriously dude?

 

the DA is a completely legit net ben, it doesnt need to say shit about the coast gurad or navy, all that matters is that transferring extra ppl doesnt link to the wage inflation DA because you arent taking needed people out of the work force

 

and, if an analytic makes sense than its fine, but even if tix does link to the cp, wage inflation doesnt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seriously dude?

 

the DA is a completely legit net ben, it doesnt need to say shit about the coast gurad or navy, all that matters is that transferring extra ppl doesnt link to the wage inflation DA because you arent taking needed people out of the work force

 

and, if an analytic makes sense than its fine, but even if tix does link to the cp, wage inflation doesnt

 

Apart from misconstruing the intent of my post, you're right. I have no problem with wage inflation being run as a disadvantage. I do have a problem with it being utilized to prop up an abusive counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This type of counterplan proves why solvency advocate is a good standard to have for PICs. And btw, the CP links as much to politics; I doubt you can win a clear link that delineates between transferring from the Navy and just getting new recruits.

1. has a solvency advocate actually has several...it has like a couple of empirical instances and evidence talking about how we should do it again now

2. even if tix isnt a nb than wage inflation still is...also we will win that the perception is coming from an increase in the totality of the armed forces not inter agency increases...

 

You missed the point. It's less a question of solvency than a question of predictability and neg bias. Nobody is questioning whether fiating Navy reserves into the Coast Guard would solve as an increase mechanism, because of course it would, but the issue of whether it is feasible as a real policy certainly is raised. It also opens a pandora's box of issues with competitive equity--the concern that allowing this means that the neg can take any person from any organization, be it government or not, and fiat them into the Coast Guard. Unless you are willing to defend that research burden, the solvency advocate criterion seems reasonable. Conversely if the aff has a squirrelly case, the neg's burden of solvency advocate scales back as well, ensuring a fair division of predictability. Your tolerance of counterplans seems myopic in the sense that the neg can just get away with too much.

1. empirical evidence checks back...our evidence is in context on how now is the ideal time for the cp

2. any risk of research burden is checked back by the lit, even though lit should never check anything it sure as hell checks back no solvency advocate

3. plus we will put all our err neg on theory

4. no need for a solvency advocate no ones evidence ever says exactly wat the plan or cp says

 

This seems rather tripe in light of the fact that the counterplan is everything the affirmative does with the exception of a different solvency mechanism. I guess this isn't a PIC if agent CPs arent PICs either. The only legitimate argument that could be inferred is that, as an offset, it tests the affirmative's adherence to the resolution. However, as it does cause an increase within the Coast Guard, the offset refers only to not recruiting new people, not not increasing within the Coast Guard.

1. under you idea everything is a pic we pic out of increasing in the military we should have the right to pic out of the topical action of the plan if you cant defend at least the topical action of the plan that wat cp ground does the neg have

2. C/I-only non-topical pics this solves all your abuse args

 

Of course politics links deal with increasing personnel within the Coast Guard. However, you've functionally conceded that no author will advocate that offsetting from Navy reserves would cost less political capital. You, as you admittedly pointed out, are left with analytics to piece the two together. Again, the issue of competitive equity is raised. Apart from training, there is no unique reason as to why Navy reserves are in the unique position to be of benefit to the Coast Guard. Reading politics with this "counterplan" takes a mile-wide leap of faith and just encourages the neg trying to pop the aff with a random, generic strategy that has no merit in a policy paradigm, something you submit to when offering a counterplan. As to the issue of wage inflation, the bar of a solvency advocate should once again be applied. Although the argument might be true in certain contexts, I don't believe that a generic piece of evidence that nowhere mentions the Navy, the Coast Guard, or the Navy and Coast Guard should be enough for you to consider this a legitimate net benefit.

1. our evidence indicates that increasing in the AF is _______ we dont increase (said above)

2. even our coast guard link evidence is a nb b/c our evidence assumes that congress pecieves it in this certain way because of the perception of increasing the power and force of the military

 

1. WAGE INFLATION LINK IS OFF OF TAKING PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND PUTTING THEM INTO THE PRIVATE SPHERE LIKE THE MILITARY. this only links to the plan

 

also if you think its weak on the nbs navy coordination...trade-off its unlimited

 

Apart from misconstruing the intent of my post, you're right. I have no problem with wage inflation being run as a disadvantage. I do have a problem with it being utilized to prop up an abusive counterplan.

NOT AN ABUSESIVE CP...fuckin eyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, maybe you haven't adequately researched the Counterplan, but plenty of literature exists that would certainly qualify as being considered a "solvency advocate". Second, even if none existed, your interpretation is the one definitely more deserving of being named myopic. Are you seriously saying that we should always resort to the (often unwarranted) opinions of others in everything we advocate... Talk about destroying education. On the issue of predictability, it shouldn't be too unpredictable for an aff to defend their specific solvency mechanism (especially when it relates back to the very purpose of the resolution in the first place). And your argument works against you. The aff should be able to use their solvency advocate to do this and leverage the case against the CP. And if your right, then winning against the CP without an advocate should be quite easy. But the fact is, if the neg can sufficiently convince the judge that such a policy action would solve (something you've already conceded) than there's absolutely no reason to reject the argument.

 

So basically, my point is, is that if such an advocate is so crucial to taking the CP's position, then the neg will most likely lose. But if the right evidence and arguments are made to give the judge reason to believe that the CP has a high probability of solving the case without linking to the net benefits, then they should win. What do you think goes on in the real world? People make these exact judgments and attempt to advance their proposals. Eliminating this kind of analytical/critical thinking in debate would ruin a large reason of why debate is so valuable.

 

I won't even get into the wage inflation argument.

 

On the issue of politics, the negative shouldn't have to provide the aff their links. But once again, the evidence is good in explaining how increased funding proposals for more recruits is what the DA links too, not taking reserves (which the evidence says are already trained and ready to take the job) and simply transferring them over. Also, look to the link Scotty provided on how the AF increase is what links to the DA. Offset =/= increase. If you concede theirs no unique reason as to why Navy reserves are better, why wouldn't the judge still vote negative due to the net benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

could you PM me or just post a cite to one of these "solvency advocate" or empirically proven cards. I'm interested in this counterplan. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apart from misconstruing the intent of my post, you're right. I have no problem with wage inflation being run as a disadvantage. I do have a problem with it being utilized to prop up an abusive counterplan.

 

you are just arguing pic's bad, you dont have a problem with the actual DA or net benefit.

 

that is a pretty weak reason why the cp is bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are just arguing pic's bad, you dont have a problem with the actual DA or net benefit.

 

that is a pretty weak reason why the cp is bad

 

Im arguings PICs without a solvency advocate bad. And to a lesser extent, contrived net benefits that aren't an opportunity cost bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. has a solvency advocate actually has several...it has like a couple of empirical instances and evidence talking about how we should do it again now

 

a. show pls

b. Navy reserves are currently being put on the ground to guard convoys in Iraq.

c. The Coast Guard and Navy already cooperate in the status quo. Depending on the advantages of the aff, your counterplan functionally does nothing.

d. The Navy is currently downsizing its personnel. The excess that your evidence talks about has already been accounted for.

 

 

2. even if tix isnt a nb than wage inflation still is...also we will win that the perception is coming from an increase in the totality of the armed forces not inter agency increases...

 

a. you'll never get a warranted card saying that

b. the Coast Guard's unique position as an Armed Force that is perceived not as a military force but rather as a member of Homeland Security solves back most of your link offense.

 

 

1. empirical evidence checks back...our evidence is in context on how now is the ideal time for the cp

 

I'd like to see this evidence. And even if it exists, I doubt it is recent enough to account for the Navy's downsizing.

 

2. any risk of research burden is checked back by the lit, even though lit should never check anything it sure as hell checks back no solvency advocate

 

a. If we win that your lit is outdated that puts you in a doublebind

1. no solvency - the Navy has no personnel to give / Navy good impact turns

2. you lost your lit checks because its outdated and hence unpredictable

b. Throughout this entire post I've defended lit/solvency actor checks. Good thing you offered some warrants to the contrary.

 

3. plus we will put all our err neg on theory

 

Another great argument filled with warrants. I guess it's because off aff bias. Oh wait...

 

4. no need for a solvency advocate no ones evidence ever says exactly wat the plan or cp says

 

The test of solvency advocate is reciprocal. The counterplan should have a solvency advocate functionally equivalent in specificity to the aff's plan. If the aff has a major case with a good solvency advocate that threshold rises. If the aff runs a squirrelly case with no solvency advocate, that burden goes down.

 

1. under you idea everything is a pic we pic out of increasing in the military we should have the right to pic out of the topical action of the plan if you cant defend at least the topical action of the plan that wat cp ground does the neg have

 

Be reasonable, I even offered an example of what I consider to be a PIC. Let me do it again:

 

PIC

 

aff: Congress removes DADT

neg: Court removes DADT

 

not PIC

 

aff: USFG removes DADT

neg: USFG repeals DOMA

 

It's an issue of encompassing the majority of the topical action of the aff.

 

2. C/I-only non-topical pics this solves all your abuse args

 

You bit the example again. Australia funds is a non-topical PIC. go ahead and defend that if you want.

 

1. our evidence indicates that increasing in the AF is _______ we dont increase (said above)

2. even our coast guard link evidence is a nb b/c our evidence assumes that congress pecieves it in this certain way because of the perception of increasing the power and force of the military

 

It's ridiculous how much you have to twist what your evidence says and doesn't say to justify a politics net benefit.

 

1. WAGE INFLATION LINK IS OFF OF TAKING PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND PUTTING THEM INTO THE PRIVATE SPHERE LIKE THE MILITARY. this only links to the plan

 

I never said this doesn't link.

 

also if you think its weak on the nbs navy coordination...trade-off its unlimited

 

That's the status quo? Explain it more if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i cant post or pm any1 sites...b/c honestly i dont have them...it was a kathy and jordan file that i saw but we only had 1 copy so they took it 2 toc and i dont get 2 c it again...but if i do ill sure post them...also you guys could probably find this shit on your own...find how many unused naval reservists there are...2 find when naval reservists have been used in the coast guard...than find a comparative card on their training...ill answer other posts after school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i cant post or pm any1 sites...b/c honestly i dont have them...it was a kathy and jordan file that i saw but we only had 1 copy so they took it 2 toc and i dont get 2 c it again...but if i do ill sure post them...also you guys could probably find this shit on your own...find how many unused naval reservists there are...2 find when naval reservists have been used in the coast guard...than find a comparative card on their training...ill answer other posts after school

 

Thanks,

 

All I could find so far was this...

 

"A Naval Air Reserve P-3C Orion crew and a U.S. Coast Guard cutter recently teamed up to bring about a major drug bust in the Eastern Pacific."

 

Hopefully that is not along the lines of the "Naval Reserves have worked in the Coast Guard before card".

 

There seems to be a lot of Navy Reserves-Coast Guard cooperation cards, but cooperation is a lot different than transferring Naval reservists into the Coast Guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually i assume its this card that you're relying on...

 

"In July, the Navy and Coast Guard established a new joint port-security and harbor-defense force. Naval Coastal Warfare Squadron 34—based at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Calif.—combines anti-terrorism and force-protection units from the Coast Guard and Naval Reserve that had just returned from deployments in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere."

 

Again, I think the same problem arises. Creating a whole new joint force task that incorporates the skillsets and equipments of the two forces to create its own mission separate from both the Coast Guard and Navy mission is a lot different than throwing a whole bunch of Navy reservists into an organization they have yet to experience.

 

Then again, I'm sure solvency isn't too much of an issue considering their skillset can't be too different.

 

While the CP problably does a decent job of solving, the debate can very easily come down to the theoretical issues of not having a solvency advocate with the CP. Although all of you may dismiss the argument just as PICs bad or some dumb theory argument, I think it is a reasonable debate to win. The offense (not defense) against this CP essentially comes down to "naval reservists bad". Without a solvency advocate, not only is it hard to predict and have such evidence, the literature base may not even exist. It probably does for naval reservists, but the interpretation that "having no solvency advocate is ok" justifies a cp that offsets individuals from any random organization where that literature base doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and no, having a past joint operation between the Coast Guard and the Navy is not a solvency advocate nor emperical evidence proving that Naval reservists have worked IN the Coast Guard before.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...