Jump to content
LiamTheGreat

Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

Micah says:

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

No judges want to pull the trigger on xtra T and there's an infinition of offensive reasons why this is good for the topic.

Alternative interpretations that aren't too eccentric increase education because debating the same affs year long doesn't accomplish anything. Secondly, the only reasons most teams read that Xtra T is bad is that it isn't predictable, but lit. checks.

Furthermore, there's no abuse because they still have all of their predictable withdrawal bad ground.

Moreover, it increases the ground they would normally have (withdraw bad)

and gives them an entire area of deployment bad ground that they wouldn't have had before.

 

3) There is literally no strategic advantage.

It's strategic for the simple fact you take out every teams top strats off the bat. All these teams have 3 or 4 strats they go with every round and none of them are geared towards any affs like this. It makes teams throw together crappy, often contradicting strats on the run, and really waste a hell of a lot of downtime.

 

Now the negative can read:

1) more deployment at X is bad disad

Sweet that's just what you'd want them do to because you're already 8 minutes ahead on that debate. The entire aff is an impact turn to the DA.

 

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

Perm solves because aff = impact turn... and I would not want to be on the other side of the text. vs. functionality debate on this topic.

 

On the nat service topic I read an aff that transferred the armed forces into the peace corp. which is honestly worked out decently. It didn't lose to xtra T once, and from experience it threw a lot of teams for a loop just because there weren't any other affs like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Thats pretty damn risky...

bidirectionality is a pretty hard to beat on the aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly, the only reasons most teams read that Xtra T is bad is that it isn't predictable, but lit. checks.

 

1) Lit checks is so very 1999. But its hardly the offensive weapon you attempt to turn it into. (see #5)

 

2) Extra-t destroys predictable negative ground.

 

3) And it explodes the topic, because any topical action + give 100,000 to the military in South Korea is topical. And literature doesn't check this. (You cause a geometric increase in the number of affs--and unpredictable permutations and combinations there of)

 

4) Also, specifying to re-base the troops in topical countries makes the resolution bidirectional. Now the neg has to say military bad in topical countries (and it would be easy to prove in round abuse).

 

5) Ultimate defense: You have it backward---the topic defines the literature--not the other way around.

 

 

Moreover, it increases the ground they would normally have (withdraw bad)

and gives them an entire area of deployment bad ground that they wouldn't have had before.

 

All of that is unpredictable ground...it changes the resolution from 10 to 20 options to 200 or more.

 

Your ability to be ahead on the impact debate is irrelevant if you lose on topicality

 

on the nat service topic I read an aff that transferred the armed forces into the peace corp. which is honestly worked out decently.

 

beating bad teams on bad arguments isn't something to brag about. and i bet that was your novice year to boot. its also not something to base your strategy on.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a "re-direct troops to country X" case is susceptible to a close all bases/non-intervention counterplan. 1AC forecloses the "do both" perm. It's true the 1AC acts as a disadvantage to the counterplan, but I think a negative strategy of :45 seconds of T and the counterplan would be hard to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a "re-direct troops to country X" case is susceptible to a close all bases/non-intervention counterplan. 1AC forecloses the "do both" perm. It's true the 1AC acts as a disadvantage to the counterplan, but I think a negative strategy of :45 seconds of T and the counterplan would be hard to beat.

 

Agreed. Why not just K it up on their case. Because thats essentially what this strategy is about.

 

2nd. Once the literature develops (aka camps are done) you will know which case has the best deploy more literature.

 

A third option is presented by the do the aff, but exclude X region, X weapon system, or X part of the military. (either in the pullout or redeployment...thats about 6 potentials)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xtra T, but that's not a big worry considering this case is a tank.

 

 

 

An author I suggest everyone read is Michael Nagler.(nonviolence and how we can create global change in using it) I read a case based on his work for the service topic. (saying devolve the US armed forces into the peace corp) His stuff works very well for a critical aff with either levinas or foucault.

 

I read this case way back on the WMD topic. Was great cuz we solved for all uses of WMD everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolved: The United States federal government should use 42 US Air Force Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic/tactical airlifting aircraft to substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

 

 

The T debates are going to be annoying as hell.

 

This plan text is an easy win on a pic.... with a spec arg... and a pic = win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is an issue where topicality intersects w/ affs in a big way, so I'm posting it here.

 

 

I believe in 75% to 85% of debates "reduce" will be conceived as a numerical issue, but merriam websters has several definitions:

 

4 a : to force to capitulate b : force, compel

5 a : to bring to a systematic form or character <reduce natural events to laws> b : to put down in written or printed form <reduce an agreement to writing>

6 : to correct (as a fracture) by bringing displaced or broken parts back into their normal positions

7 a : to lower in grade or rank : demote b : to lower in condition or status : downgrade

8 a : to diminish in strength or density b : to diminish in value

This is just a small assortment of the more interesting definitions of "reduce."

 

Although, nothing but the topic paper (and the cases that come out of camp) will suggest that it must be a numerical issue. I think with some decent offense against framers intent (there are volumes and volumes of criticism of framers intent as an interpretative model for the Constitution which could provide more than enough fodder to make these arguments)...there is some potential for some rather odd interpretations of "reduce."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on redeployment (having read the topic once) is this:

 

It's XT to say where the troops will be going, beyond out of the host country. You are claiming advs from non topical action...deploying TO the new country. However, there can easily be advantages that say removing from host A allows us to send to host B, and if they were out that's what would happen. I don't think that's too difficult of a solvency burden in most cases.

 

By the same token, I think an interesting disad strat would be "pulling troops from X = we send to Y and that would be bad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Withdraw all Native troops in resolutional countries and make Natives exempt from the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might just be extra-T.

 

Pshaw, T was invented to kill Natives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pshaw, T was invented to kill Natives.

 

Deja Vu, man.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deja Vu, man.

 

It's like we just had this discussion... And everyone reacts the same way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like we just had this discussion... And everyone reacts the same way.

 

I know the feeling, brah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USFG should amend its Status of Forces Agreements with the government of Japan (and/or other countries) to transfer jurisdiction over civil and criminal prosecution to the host nation.

 

It's arguably topical because it reduces US police presence.

 

Why run this? You'd be surprised at the kind of bad shit that US service members can get away with overseas.

 

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20090303zg.html

http://www.newser.com/story/22324/okinawa-protesters-rip-us-military-crimes.html

 

Leaves room for all sorts of critical advantages. You don't necessarily have to run with hege every debate, you know.

 

You'd have a hard time winning T with that case. But it would be perfectly topical to just pull out of Japan completely and have abuse/kritiky advantages. You could also claim Japan rearm/prolif good advantages (although you are probably on the wrong side of the evidence for those... not sure, been years since I've researched it).

 

Seems to me that the phrase "military presence" could actually allow for cases like landmines and depleted uranium. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that several camps will put them out. Landmines might have some inherency problems though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's absolutely extra-topical to specify reallocation to another country in the plan text. I also don't know why you'd bother. Read your plan text as Iraq withdrawal and then read your evidence that says we'd deploy more troops to Afghanistan if we didn't have obligations in Iraq.

 

I agree specifying relocation of troops is probably extra-topical. But I also think that the Aff can make a pretty compelling argument that in the real world troops are relocated all the time and that decisions to draw down in a certain country are rarely made for any other reason than to reassign them to another location.

 

The neg can then counter with the argument that ground is being taken away due to the fact that they can't run disads on the re-deployment of the troops the aff sent home (Afgan escalation for example)... This would be an interesting T debate.

 

On a totally separate note. I haven't seen anybody discuss a case that would pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan and focus on US Military personnel mental health/suicide advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States Fed Gov should remove all Native American soldiers stationed in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

  • Downvote 2

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 South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkey by poisoning MRE's sent to those countries.

 

Malthus adv, plus some kritiky advantages like losing parents/family members makes people more determined to evolve. (could pull some sweet darwinian theory here)

 

Just spitballin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd have a hard time winning T with that case. But it would be perfectly topical to just pull out of Japan completely and have abuse/kritiky advantages. You could also claim Japan rearm/prolif good advantages (although you are probably on the wrong side of the evidence for those... not sure, been years since I've researched it).

 

Seems to me that the phrase "military presence" could actually allow for cases like landmines and depleted uranium. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that several camps will put them out. Landmines might have some inherency problems though.

 

From the site: "Begin the destruction within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;"

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 South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkey by poisoning MRE's sent to those countries.

 

Malthus adv, plus some kritiky advantages like losing parents/family members makes people more determined to evolve. (could pull some sweet darwinian theory here)

 

Just spitballin

 

 

That literally makes no sense.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...