Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DaBean

Darfur Aff.

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about running something outside the box for my aff at districts. Here is the basic premise.

 

Harms:

A. Darfur Civil Wars Kill

B. Darfur Civil Wars Cause Displacement

 

Inherency:

A. (some I about US foreign aid)

 

Plan:

Mandates: The USFG will substantially increase military presence in Darfur to stop the military violence present is Darfur and will work to stop the displacement of people in areas around Darfur.

 

Solvency:

A. The US can stop the wars in Darfur

 

Adv 1. War

A. Cross apply Harms A.

B. Cross apply Solvency A.

C. We save all the people currently dying

 

Adv 2. Water

A. Cross apply Harms B

B. Water resources are limited

C. We solve for water by putting displaced people back

 

It can go on from there. It is still in the works and could use some work. I like the versatility of the advantages because we can go for food or anything else that is affected by displacement. Any advice is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to take this constructively, but I would consider the plan text to be hella effects topical(then again, what isn't this year?). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your plan is topical, then sending US troops into Africa in order to re-colonize it would be topical as well, provided we improved the health of the Africans living there?

 

Cause, correct me if I'm wrong- being displaced doesn't necessarily impact your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take this constructively.

 

First of all, as the above poster said, that's very effectually topical. How is public health assistance = increased military presence? Only effectually.

 

 

Additionally, T - SSA = all 48 countries

 

Or: T - SSA = half of SSA

 

or a quarter of SSA. Or an eighth. Or a sixteenth.

 

People win on it a lot because they have it blocked up the ass and are good T debaters, but giving aid to one country is NOT topical.

 

 

You should at the very least put a dehum impact on it, or another advantage. if all your impacts are systematic you'd get killed on magnitude.

 

 

Also, this can get CP'd out very easily. Absolutely no reason that the US is key, win partial risk on a DA, they'll get full case solvency every time.

 

 

Also, this is hella imperialistic. Any K-team that is fairly good should have no trouble with saying how super-imperialistic this is. It links into a lot of kritiks (as in more than normal), but maybe you're not worried about that. Hell, there's tons of kritiks that use darfur as an example of representations - if this is the AFF itself, you basically just gave them a full link.

 

 

I don't really see a strategic reason for running this AFF unless you're in love with systematic impacts and just want to avoid clash. Maybe I'm wrong, tell me why you want to run this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are missing the really big argument against this case - military overstretch. We already have two major engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stop loss retention is being used, tours extended and the national guard is in the field. Now you want to step into another war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that military overstretch is as big of a deal as linking into PHA F/X T, SSA T, basically every actor CP, imperialism K or any western-intervention K, and having weak systematic impacts as the heart of the case without even a dehum claim.

 

It's just another DA that links, and I wouldn't really call that as a big of a war. About 5,000 American soldiers (which we have readily available) can calm Darfur down according to some lit. Solvency and overstretch isn't that big of an issue, but if the AFF doesn't have it well blocked out they can win on it pretty easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some judges hate T and Ks. A good DA (with or without an actor CP) will beat this case regardless of the judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I guess.. but this case is actually untopical, you can very easily run a DA about giving aid to all of SSA, or even more shadily a part of SSA, and have them spike out of it. Bam, abuse story claimed. They abused you, they are killing fairness. I mean, it is true that overlimiting is better than underlimiting, but you can back up 'debate is a game' theory and say that they're killing fairness, and say fairness is key to any education and even though you're getting more in-depth education, you need fairness before that.

 

If you win a T debate and an abuse story on a case that is untopical that would just be a total judgefuck.

 

On Ks, yeah, some judges don't like them. Unless you're in a very lay circuit, if you prove the link on the K, articulate the story well (this is a very simple K, this isn't Zizek or Nietzsche), extend alternative solvency, and win the line-by-line (which any decent K debater should on this case), I think it would also be a total judgefuck assuming that they didn't win a Ks Bad F/W.

 

And also, ANY int'l CP actor can do this case. yeah, they link right into that DA, but they also link very hard into tix scenarios too. that's another easy way to win, true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing this plan with a friend over lunch, and they agreed- it links out the ass to all types of Ks and DAs, as previously stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With T and K you have a high likelihood of facing theory debates, which by their very nature, get murky. Why hinge the round on that? Sure, run T by all means. The CP-Military readiness combo is the conservative, sure-fire way to beat this case. CP answers any moral imperatives on case, DA demonstrates huge NB. That way, there is no chance that a judge will dump your K.

 

On a personal level, I find the kritikal approaches to be more compelling reasons to stay uninvolved than the military ones. In round, it just isn't worth the risk of confusing a lay judge or invoking the contempt of a closet K hater.

 

If there is a demonstrable way to demonstrate the inadvisability of the policy in the fiat framework, take it. The Darfur case simply has no defense to this attack other than going kritikal themselves. And honestly, I can't think of a K that would apply to the neg position and not link back into aff's assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither can I. I think the K, in a tabula rasa situation, is a more compelling argument. Think about it, that's a big fucking assumption they make - Africans need our military aid. But yeah, if you're at a lay tournament, stay away from the K. Generally, I like debating critically, and at most of my tournaments they would at least tell you if they don't like Kritiks, and then you go with policy. You are right though - that DA does link.

 

This case is actually untopical in two ways, very imperialist, representational, and it doesn't really have any non-systematic impacts the way the Topic Creator posted it. Really would not reccomend running it unless you're doing a kritikal version that allows you to outweigh and possibly kritik topicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's very good as a kritikal aff either. What do you run with it: eurocentrism - that non-intervention is based on European/American lives being more important than those in Sudan? Unfortunately, that only applies to individuals' actions and not states'. As soon as it becomes government policy to intervene, you link back into your K out of the assumption that the US can do what the Sudanese cannot. And even if you run planless, and make the point that we should all take up arms personally in the Sudan, it doesn't uphold the topic. You bite T on one side, and your own K on the other. I can't think of another kritikal approach that makes more sense.

 

I always like to think of kritiks as the big weapon. Even if you have the best quarterback and the best wide receivers in the game, you don't just throw long passes. If the opposition can't stop your ground game, it is always your best option. I look at stocks/DA/CP as more of the ground game of debate. Having a passing game (K) is important, but not needed to beat the weakest opposition. It also provides the possibility of losing on an interception return (judge intervention). Okay, enough football metaphors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, as the above poster said, that's very effectually topical. How is public health assistance = increased military presence? Only effectually.

 

 

Additionally, T - SSA = all 48 countries

 

Or: T - SSA = half of SSA

 

or a quarter of SSA. Or an eighth. Or a sixteenth.

 

People win on it a lot because they have it blocked up the ass and are good T debaters, but giving aid to one country is NOT topical.

It's not technically topical, but why should that stop someone from running a case? All you need are good frontlines and oh, I don't know, maybe a definition saying genocide=PHA...(hint) Plus subsets T isn't that hard to beat and it's definately not true at all.

 

You should at the very least put a dehum impact on it, or another advantage. if all your impacts are systematic you'd get killed on magnitude.

Theres tons of adv. ground on this case, on top of that all you need is a card or two saying genocide outweighs all other mpx, which are definately out there.

 

Also, this can get CP'd out very easily. Absolutely no reason that the US is key, win partial risk on a DA, they'll get full case solvency every time.

Theres plenty of cards saying the US is key on this, along w/ good frontlines and knowledge of your case you should easily be able to beat a CP.

 

Also, this is hella imperialistic. Any K-team that is fairly good should have no trouble with saying how super-imperialistic this is. It links into a lot of kritiks (as in more than normal), but maybe you're not worried about that. Hell, there's tons of kritiks that use darfur as an example of representations - if this is the AFF itself, you basically just gave them a full link.

With framework and K frontlines again that isn't THAT big of a deal, and I mean, all of these arguements you're making against this case can be true for just about every case this year, it's not a reason to not run this aff.

 

I don't really see a strategic reason for running this AFF unless you're in love with systematic impacts and just want to avoid clash. Maybe I'm wrong, tell me why you want to run this.

 

Firstly, its systemic. Secondly, theres plenty of reason to run this case, IF you write it correctly and know it well enough and have frontlines/are ready to debate the expectable stuff you point out.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...