Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sandman

what are possible MEDFLAGS neg strats?

Recommended Posts

Imperialism

 

PIC out of any of the four regional anchor states, there's only 25% risk of a solvency deficit not to mention you get to weigh your NB against the hege impacts of the case

 

Threat Con

T-SSA

War with China CP

China CP with Relations DA (Straight turns the case, relations possible and good)

 

 

Basically, I have a lot of really good args you can run against this. It is also assuming that this is the political warfare version of the argument. BTW, that is the ONLY good way you can run MEDFLAGS. Any other way can be defeated by simple solvency arguments.

 

PM me if you have any questions.

 

~Nietzsche

 

(P.S. Miami file provides the Dentist pick the above poster was referencing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell if the poster above me is serious...

Anyways, we usually just consult on cases with military advantages, so yeah...

Otherwise just case answers and one or 2 good disads is probably the way to go. Maybe cp out of an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well lets consider the aff

 

it sends DOCTORS to AFRICA that claims to solve heg and terrorism. sounds like a huge joke to me; try finding just some of the abundance of ev that says no one cares about Africa in real geopolitics, and terrorists there cant get nukes.

 

heg bad works too.

 

Dentist PIC isnt competitive with this aff i don't know why you suggested it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't you just CP to do the plan to the four countries where the bases will be located? Seems like the obvious CP to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dentist PIC isnt competitive with this aff i don't know why you suggested it.

 

While I think the PIC is lame, especially the dental readiness stuff, it is functionally competitive because MEDFLAG operations send a wide variety of military units including doctors, dentists, linguists, veterinarians and other technical support.

 

Other possible options for PICs would be to look at how they are reading the Fox evidence. If they are reading the disease surveillance part it gives you two options:

 

1) PIC out of Disease Surveillance and run your diseases surveillance bad arguments as offense. You still solve all of the heg arguments.

 

2) PIC out of MEDFLAGs and then run military bad arguments (militarism, readiness, overstretech, etc) ***Not all at the same time obviously.

 

Scott Wike - Millard South Debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um wrong, you would have to get the affirmative to concede in cross-x that they either a) send dentists or B) defend normal means. If you never ask then that counterplan isnt competitive, not to mention it obviously isn't textually competitive.

 

and as a side note, there isn't a single good team that reads MEDFLAGs who will defend normal means or that they send dentists, and many don't defend the surveillance stuff that you reference, so might want a new strategy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um wrong, you would have to get the affirmative to concede in cross-x that they either a) send dentists or B) defend normal means. If you never ask then that counterplan isnt competitive, not to mention it obviously isn't textually competitive.

 

and as a side note, there isn't a single good team that reads MEDFLAGs who will defend normal means or that they send dentists, and many don't defend the surveillance stuff that you reference, so might want a new strategy.

 

While I agree that it isn't textually competitive, "good teams" will be able to argue that functional competition is better than textual competition. Also, I'm not disagreeing with the normal means stuff, the problem I see is that the Aff then needs to clarify what they do send. I don't think that it is unrealistic to want that information since Fox assumes that MEDFLAG operations would be the same as SQ missions, only expanded. In the scenario where they exclude certain empirical units and they have a disease advantage, there is a solvency deficit there, not much, but it does exist.

 

One way to exploit this lack of clarification is to ask what they send aka doctors and the run anthropocentrism as offense and send veterinarians as well. It is plan-plus and artificially competitive (whole other thread), but it is at least something different if you like CPs.

 

On a side note, Josh Martin writes a pretty good article analyzing the linear/terminal impact strategy on EvTub as it relates to MEDFLAG-style cases: http://evtub.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=32

 

Scott Wike - Millard South Debate

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats the best way to go about this case? especially what kind of counterplan should we run

 

china cp

china d/a

us imperialism bad

hege bad

solvency turns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counterplan that bans military humanitarianism within AFRICOM and does GHS instead or some other form of civilian humanitarian assistance seems as if it would solve the vast majority of AFRICOM based advantages.

 

And there aren't many internal links unique to this aff, so theres a lot of advantage counterplan ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is this absolutely sick cp that pics out of dentists. the net benefit is something about dental overstretch and how it leads to nuclear war and we are on the brink in the squo...u read the cards they are actually pretty good.

This is kind of stupid; 1) Mike is right alot of teams won't defend normal means and there's no way this PIC is textually competative, 2) the link turns to this argument are fairly fucking devistating since MEDFLAGs have also been used to train military medical personel who are not yet ready for deployment to our active combat zones, 3) any argument about the ability to take America as a peacekeeping force out of commission as a result of the plan rocks the readiness internal link to your impacts here since those operations are a much larger drain on capabilities than dentists.

 

Imperialism

I don't know if this is the precise argument I'd go with but the critique is probably a good way to beat this affirmative since a large portion of the affirmative relies on philosophically contentious principles such as US Hegemony and democracy.

 

PIC out of any of the four regional anchor states, there's only 25% risk of a solvency deficit not to mention you get to weigh your NB against the hege impacts of the case

Mayhaps however be warned that most teams on this topic that you'd be having trouble beating to begin with probably have defenses of the countries their aff goes to watch your back about that.

 

Threat Con

T-SSA

War with China CP

China CP with Relations DA (Straight turns the case, relations possible and good)

The first counterplan is probably theoretically illegitimate unless you're saying attack China. The topicality argument is something entirely possible to win on but I think the aff may be on the right side of that debate because there's some claims to be made for why affecting particular countries is good that are just true. As to China here's what we said, I don't mind saying this now since we've stopped reading the aff....

A) China can't economically crush the US yet but will be there by 2009.

B) When China reaches this capacity it will attack the United States on three fronts; 1) the economy 2) Middle East conflagration to put the US at full deployment and 3) the western seaboard when the US is stretched to full capacity. They will attack with biological weapons to keep infrastructure intact. None of your arguments about their desire for a stable economy or a peaceful rise can overcome this. Expansion into the United States is a try or die for their government.

C) The impact is extinction; if the Chinese catch us with our pants down and cut off the conventional option we will result to nuclear combat.

D) In a war now we can use conventional capacity; the war is over in 9 hours.

 

 

 

 

I gotta go back to class I'll finish this post later....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't mind saying this now since we've stopped reading the aff....

 

LOL. "China war good" isn't exactly as innovative (or very strategic), as you might have thought in putting off posting about it and all..

 

there's some of these mearshimer/realism cards in the kndi medflags aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. "China war good" isn't exactly as innovative or even strategic, as you might have thought in putting off posting about it and all..

You'd be suprised at what arguments still come off as shockingly radical and new in the state of Kansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it isn't textually competitive, "good teams" will be able to argue that functional competition is better than textual competition. Also, I'm not disagreeing with the normal means stuff, the problem I see is that the Aff then needs to clarify what they do send. I don't think that it is unrealistic to want that information since Fox assumes that MEDFLAG operations would be the same as SQ missions, only expanded. In the scenario where they exclude certain empirical units and they have a disease advantage, there is a solvency deficit there, not much, but it does exist.

 

One way to exploit this lack of clarification is to ask what they send aka doctors and the run anthropocentrism as offense and send veterinarians as well. It is plan-plus and artificially competitive (whole other thread), but it is at least something different if you like CPs.

 

On a side note, Josh Martin writes a pretty good article analyzing the linear/terminal impact strategy on EvTub as it relates to MEDFLAG-style cases: http://evtub.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=32

 

Scott Wike - Millard South Debate

 

 

thats your theoretical standpoint, however just because they "should" clarify doesnt make the counterplan competitive. If they do not defend sending dentists in c-x or in their text they can legitimately perm to do the counterplan, as they "reserve the right to clarify" what their own plan does.

 

your anthropocentrism idea isn't remotely competitive. that's essentially like asking someone if they end detention at GITMO, and when they say no u can do the plan plus end GITMO just because the USFG is in the plan and the USFG does bad shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asking someone if they end detention at GITMO, and when they say no u can do the plan plus end GITMO just because the USFG is in the plan and the USFG does bad shit.

 

Yeah in retrospect, that totally doesn't work. I probably should read my posts more carefully.

 

Scott Wike - Millard South Debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medflags gets their money from the DOD.(department of defense). That's how they don't link to spending. So make a disad that says it trades off with something else b/c they get money from the DOD.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pic out of nigeria. after running a nigeria disad saying the reject military action. or you can use bird flu worse in afgahn. so cp would be ghs. + heg bad. maybe some niet. as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well seeing as MEDFLAGS sends the military to help public health assistance i think a pretty good strat involves securitization.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well seeing as MEDFLAGS sends the military to help public health assistance i think a pretty good strat involves securitization.

 

they said neg strat not generic shitty arg

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pic out of nigeria. after running a nigeria disad saying the reject military action. or you can use bird flu worse in afgahn. so cp would be ghs. + heg bad. maybe some niet. as well.

i am sure GHS also solves the internal link to their hege advanatges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they said neg strat not generic shitty arg

 

Like youre not running a security k this year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like youre not running a security k this year...

 

I'm not. Security is good. So is hegemony, realism and the War on Terror. Back off you piece of shit liberal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some common arguments against MEDFLAGS can rage from military use bad, to Malthus. Just depends on your common strategies. If you really want to run an international actor CP, I would recommend saying "____ country should create a program modelling the US MEDFLAGS". I don't know how legit this is, but it seems workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yeah, EU can do MEDCAP missions

Warren 4 (Joseph B., MedSurg Nursing, April, “Military medical-surgical nurses in operations other than war: MEDCAP missions during deployments,” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSS/is_2_13/ai_n17206930 kmodi)

 

Among the most important OOTW for military nurses are Medical Community Action Program (MEDCAP) missions. MEDCAP missions are not a new concept for military operations, nor are they unique to the United States military. The members of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) frequently incorporate MEDCAP missions into their peacemaking and peacekeeping operations. Currently, EU and NATO members are in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...