Jump to content
thuglife

Al-Shifa Neg

Recommended Posts

So I am finishing up my prep for nats that is coming up next week and i think I'm good against basically every case except for one. That is the Al-Shifa Aff. Does anyone have any good ideas to run against this aff that they would want to share?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I am finishing up my prep for nats that is coming up next week and i think I'm good against basically every case except for one. That is the Al-Shifa Aff. Does anyone have any good ideas to run against this aff that they would want to share?

 

topicality - helping to rebuild one pharmaceutical plant (that arguably isnt even in ssa) is probably not directly giving pha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a good neg for this that i have no use for, PM me if you got trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea i would pretty much focus on T, but theres also some kritiks you could go for tying in with some authors that are generally used in al-shifa, PM me if youd like some files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you run 3 T's? chances are with an aff so blatantly untopical they are going to violate whichever one you throw out pretty hard so i would just go win one or maybe two. also i assume they are kritikal with this aff so they might K T and if you just wasted your time reading 3 and then they just answer them all with a K of T then you are on the wrong side of the time trade off. I like the terrorism DA though. spending not so much. look into a dev K maybe. im not all that familiar with the aff though so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but please don't run how Al-shifa increases terrorism and how it is used to produced bio-weapons unless you want to lose. Not only will any team that runs this aff have this blocked out but the ev supporting this is so weak, and it has been proven multiple times that al-shifa was used ONLY for medicine production. The plant nor its owners had no connection what so ever to any terrorist regime.

On the T: the first T is only specific to the reimbursment of the plant owner not the rebuilding of the plant. the SSA has very weak lit behind it esp. when there are far more qualified sources that do include sudan in SSA.

On spending if you are going to go that way you will need more up to date cards and make sure it takes into account omni-bus considering that is a huge spending bill and we haven't seen the impact yet and we are 5 months since it was passed.

On solvency: the sudan times 08 card doesn't apply what so ever and the risen 2000 card takes into the account of the failed intel that led to the original attack and is weak at best. it also takes out any card saying that al shifa was connected to terrorism or produced chemical weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please please please read that 1NC against me! This was covered a lot in the sort-of official al-shifa thread, but they major solvency advocate for this aff (Ahmed) writes some fucking amazing securitization literature. The notion of a terrorist attack as a reason to not rebuild this plant, no matter how many internal links, would be a big red bullseye for Ahmed.

 

Instead, you can counterplan by pulling out of Iraq. This probably solves terrorism and definitely solves the first strike/ international modeling advantages.

 

Net benefit is a china relations DA - china sees Sudan as their domain, U.S. attempts to appease Sudan threaten china, china will seek to secure Sudan by increasing small arms. US appeasing Sudan kills US-china relations, means the US can't use soft power to stop arm sales (which they are trying to do now). You can get answers that are Sudan specific to every one of the generic 2AC answers to Chinese relations. This DA is very hard to beat.

 

Alternatively, pulling out of Iraq and giving aid to Sudan probably have different political effects for a politics DA, but I never bothered to get into that stuff.

 

You just solved the entire 1AC with a sweet net benefit. Good game affirmative.

 

Edit: I got gray rep from whoever had that 1NC up. Does anyone remember who it was?

Edited by Murray07
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please please please read that 1NC against me! This was covered a lot in the sort-of official al-shifa thread, but they major solvency advocate for this aff (Ahmed) writes some fucking amazing securitization literature. The notion of a terrorist attack as a reason to not rebuild this plant, no matter how many internal links, would be a big red bullseye for Ahmed.

 

Instead, you can counterplan by pulling out of Iraq. This probably solves terrorism and definitely solves the first strike/ international modeling advantages.

 

Net benefit is a china relations DA - china sees Sudan as their domain, U.S. attempts to appease Sudan threaten china, china will seek to secure Sudan by increasing small arms. US appeasing Sudan kills US-china relations, means the US can't use soft power to stop arm sales (which they are trying to do now). You can get answers that are Sudan specific to every one of the generic 2AC answers to Chinese relations. This DA is very hard to beat.

 

Alternatively, pulling out of Iraq and giving aid to Sudan probably have different political effects for a politics DA, but I never bothered to get into that stuff.

 

You just solved the entire 1AC with a sweet net benefit. Good game affirmative.

now that is agood strat.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if there is any other advantages ran with this case besides the pre-emptive strikes advantages that Damien runs and terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27

some teams run a levinas responsibility type argument with this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a team runs the Levinasian version I would go with a Zizekian criticism of the depolitization of ethics. The instant they claim an ethic of unconditional hospitality Zizek gets all over that. The basic idea is that whenever we take ethics away from the realm of political question (and calculative thought) we are no longer allowed to challenge actions that operate in the name of ethics. (Does this sound like a Levinasian 1ac? Yes it does. Vote for us because we are ethical regardless of what the neg says.) This means we can commit acts of genocide, nuclear war, or anything else that is also morally reprhensible so long as the original action is done under the banner of ethics. Impact 100% turns case.

 

A good example of this is the NATO Kosovo invasion. We killed millions and millions of people with NATO bombs under the guise of ethics. The idea of the war was unchallengable because it was "an ethical action" and yet we slaughtered even the people we were trying to save. One author writes a lot about how human rights/ethics interact (using Kosovo as a major example) but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to disclose it as it is an intraschool file. If you want it PM Murray to see what he says.

Edited by FPS9_16
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some teams run a levinas responsibility type argument with this case

 

I think that was westlake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...