Jump to content
LiamTheGreat

Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

ToC championship on the horizon

 

These words also were uttered by an imaginary Morgan Freeman when I saw your post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard inspired mee to write a book, then burn it. jus' sayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolved: The United States should substantially reduce its military presence, excluding special operation forces in Japan and Turkey using CVN class aircraft carriers.

 

I think 80% of Naval cases...unless they are Navy bases will be determined to be non-topical.

 

Specifically your advantage will come from lack of sea domination and lack of sea deployment--which proves the extra-topicality abuse.

 

This seems to be the only check on the resolution which easily has 30 affirmatives without the need for aircraft carrier based affirmatives.

 

Also, I'm curious if "reduce" will be interpreted to eliminate or a similar interpretation, which may further limit cases like this one.

 

Interesting idea....just makes the aff ground too big in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im running an irony aff next year.

 

cool story bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey."

 

Reduce its presence...

 

Does this mean I can just send troops on a suicide war for an aff? When they die, they aren't present in X country anymore. Then claim war good (wipeout,spark, Hillman, etc...) for an advantage?

 

New here at Cross-ex, dunt hurrrt me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think 80% of Naval cases...unless they are Navy bases will be determined to be non-topical.

 

Specifically your advantage will come from lack of sea domination and lack of sea deployment--which proves the extra-topicality abuse.

 

This seems to be the only check on the resolution which easily has 30 affirmatives without the need for aircraft carrier based affirmatives.

 

Also, I'm curious if "reduce" will be interpreted to eliminate or a similar interpretation, which may further limit cases like this one.

 

Interesting idea....just makes the aff ground too big in my humble opinion.

 

 

Good points, I'll try rewriting the text to allow better ground but preserve the plan. Thanks for the help Nathan.

 

Quick question, I don't plan on generating any solvency off of the aircraft carriers, so what's the case for abuse? And would you think just cutting it out would be sufficient?

Edited by eBro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an irony aff. The USFG should substantially reduce it's military and police presence in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey by launching at least one nuclear weapon at every base within each country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A internal link turn to terrorism DA's for affs could be that military bases make native people mad and they will want to join Al Queda, BUT, if the military bases are not there, they won't attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i miss my sps

would it be extra topical to specify in the resolution that we use some form of military sattelite to reduce our troop deployments?

 

and i guess a more general related question

 

will it be extra topical this year to specify our mechanism in our plan text?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an irony aff. The USFG should substantially reduce it's military and police presence in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey by launching at least one nuclear weapon at every base within each country.

 

plan flaw: it's

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another extra-T question: Would redeployment to a non-resolutional country be extra-topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another extra-T question: Would redeployment to a non-resolutional country be extra-topical?

 

I'm going to guess yes (although everything is, of course, debatable). I have a feeling that re-deployment CPs will be a key neg ground (with either politics or individual country-based NB's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a feeling that re-deployment CPs will be a key neg ground (with either politics or individual country-based NB's).

 

Interesting idea...not really competitive.

 

Its like do the affirmative and then roll it back in 6 months.

 

The perm solves. Game over.

 

(and you can't isolate a net benefit because the perm is the counterplan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another extra-T question: Would redeployment to a non-resolutional country be extra-topical?

 

yes

 

but would it be extra topical to redeploy troops to a resolutional country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say depends on how big the advantages are for redeployment if thats the whole case then yes but if it is only a small advantage then no.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes

 

but would it be extra topical to redeploy troops to a resolutional country?

 

Reployment to a resolutional country...is without question untopical. In fact, some might say anti-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reployment to a resolutional country...is without question untopical. In fact, some might say anti-topical.

I don't think so. It might not fit the framers intent but it's topical because the topic simply asks the affirmative to withdraw troops from one of the listed areas. The plan does that. It is however xtra T, but I think affs of this fashion are fairly strategic because they're so abusive and really put a damper on neg ground. If you're a decent T debater, it'd be worth trying in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so. It might not fit the framers intent but it's topical because the topic simply asks the affirmative to withdraw troops from one of the listed areas. The plan does that. It is however xtra T, but I think affs of this fashion are fairly strategic because they're so abusive and really put a damper on neg ground. If you're a decent T debater, it'd be worth trying in a round.

 

it's also FX not T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah says:

 

I don't think so. It might not fit the framers intent but it's topical because the topic simply asks the affirmative to withdraw troops from one of the listed areas. The plan does that. It is however xtra T, but I think affs of this fashion are fairly strategic because they're so abusive and really put a damper on neg ground. If you're a decent T debater, it'd be worth trying in a round.

 

But this is a bit misleading...actually quite misleading....

 

1) Winning extra-topicality on the neg. is rather easy.

 

2) This strategy puts you in the position to win 0 to 15% of your debates....instead of the position to win 45% to 90% of your debates. Even the least prepped teams can win on extra-topicality. (if you K topicality well....assuming it works with judges in your region...you **might** up that by 4 to 8%)

 

3) There is literally no strategic advantage.

 

Now the negative can read:

1) more deployment at X is bad disad

 

2) a counterplan to deploy anywhere else (assuming we have a base there or the literature otherwise supports it) as a net benefit.

 

Sorry. For these and many other reasons this is a bad, bad strat in my opinion.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points, I'll try rewriting the text to allow better ground but preserve the plan. Thanks for the help Nathan.

 

Quick question, I don't plan on generating any solvency off of the aircraft carriers, so what's the case for abuse? And would you think just cutting it out would be sufficient?

 

The aff. has that ground even if it doesn't leverage those in the 1ac (ie the neg still has to prep for you to make that move in the 2ac...even if you pinky swear you won't). This also skewed their pre-round prep too.

 

The neg has the option of reading those into the debate...instead of you being able to frame this discussion from the 1ac.

 

Also, thats the core of the debate--not sure what the advantage would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...