Jump to content
LiamTheGreat

Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

I have been following this thread for a little while and there are a few things that need to be talked about that are some serious misconceptions.

 

1. Look up what the BRAC realignment calls for. It was done back in 2006 and done to realign out military presence overseas on the recommendation of a report. The results of alot of this will surprise alot of you about what and where our troops will be. Nathan, that is the Okinawa article you are referencing, that is a deal that has been in the works for a long time, the BRAC is set up to be a phased program, it began with a force reduction in Germany a few years ago that is still going on. To move troops and close bases takes a long time to do when moving from permanent bases like in Japan, Turkey, and Korea. (none of the locations in Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan are permanent rotations, all of those troops have a home base so a pull-out could be relatively quick.

 

2. Do not be quick to think of the topic in terms of "reduce", rather focus in operational terms of "reduce military presence". You will be surprised what actions the government thinks taking is a reduction in military presence. Once you conceptualize the resolution in these terms, it will drastically change your view.

 

3. The Naval issue. The question of Navy is very simple. If the ships are in international waters, they are not in the country, unless their home port is in that country. If there home port is in that country, then while those ships may have a mission in that area, they would have to port those ships at another naval base and have them steam to the operating area or cease the mission completely. Which means you need to look and see exactly what types of troops and what units we have in those countries and what their missions are.

 

If people have questions about military specific issues, you can PM and I will get an answer for you. I am working on a very detailed topic/country analysis. I am military so you will get a military answer with a debate spin about the reality of how things work.

 

cjc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people choose to evolve?

lol, i'd use a thunderstone

 

lol... this sounds really stupid and it isn't crazy enough to avoid common neg defense. Also people could say that we would blame the poisening on terrorists leading to backlash... idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 bucks to whomever makes hemp topical for this

easy holmes, Hemp aff, give all military forces in ( chosen Area to reduce presence) a regular supply of hemp, and that would decrease the aggressiveness of forces and thereby reduce our military and police presence force, because it wouldn't really be police force if they were high all the time b/c they wouldn't want to fight anyone/ in force laws or whatever =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
easy holmes, Hemp aff, give all military forces in ( chosen Area to reduce presence) a regular supply of hemp, and that would decrease the aggressiveness of forces and thereby reduce our military and police presence force, because it wouldn't really be police force if they were high all the time b/c they wouldn't want to fight anyone/ in force laws or whatever =)

 

if you have to use the word 'thereby' to get topical, you probably aren't. this is a little closer (still extra-t):

 

Plank 1: All U.S. military forces stationed in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey will have their weapons replaced with garden implements and a bag of weed seed.

Plank 2: All U.S. military bases and airfields in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey will be converted to greenhouses.

Plank 3: MREs will be doubled in size and include one snack-pack of Cool Ranch doritos.

 

 

also, http://www.mediafire.com/i/?wmnmmmmjqrn

classic.

Edited by Mr. Spicy
added card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nukes are definitely T. One of our biggest military presences.

I'd be interested in collaborating on a remove nukes aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nukes probably arent T

 

violation? nukes are definitely military and definitely present. if you are basing this off of framers intent, the topic doc said “we should find the best phrasing to focus on forces, not weapons.” but this was simply a goal (and obviously not one which was accomplished with the current wording). by the way, pm me your email address man.

 

I'd be interested in collaborating on a remove nukes aff.

 

good deal. i'll let you know when the rough draft is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the topicality of move or eliminate nuclear weapons--I don't have a field contextual definition, however the distinction between military forces and military arms on the other seems a rather large one.

 

If military arms are included that potentially expands the size of topic by a factor of 3 to 5--and destroys 95% of predictable disad ground on the negative. (although, it may just double it--still thats a lot)

 

It also incidently makes individual military arms suppliers potentially a much bigger part of the topic. Not sure about how that effects ground--but important none the less.

 

Plus...they could counterplan to put some sort of controlling device on them as opposed to removing them. Net benefit is proliferation and hege.

 

Update: On the affirmative--I do think that those making this tactical move could point out that "military personnel" would have been used had they truly wanted to focus the topic.

 

However, the topic paper goes in the opposite direction (although intent is a questionable standard) and more importantly I think the predictability and limits arguments certainly trump.

 

The existence of "nuclear forces" as a term of art, however does also complicate things.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of the topicality of move or eliminate nuclear weapons--I don't have a field contextual definition, however the distinction between military forces and military arms on the other seems a rather large one.

 

If military arms are included that potentially expands the size of topic by a factor of 3 to 5--and destroys 95% of predictable disad ground on the negative. (although, it may just double it--still thats a lot)

 

You think that's abusive, wait till you see my framework.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?omjmym20jgq

 

if this actually turns into anything, i'll start a google group to make collab easier and turn it over to whoever does the most work since i'm graduating this year.

 

Actually, I might just use the cross-x lab group. Even though it's been flooded with porn ads of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe nuclear weapons have specially trained personnel to handle them. If you withdraw the personnel, I think it's reasonable that the weapons come with them. Just as if you closed a naval base, the ships would also come home.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I might just use the cross-x lab group. Even though it's been flooded with porn ads of late.

 

Not particularly. There were like two a couple months ago and one a week or so ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think that's abusive, wait till you see my framework.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?omjmym20jgq

 

if this actually turns into anything, i'll start a google group to make collab easier and turn it over to whoever does the most work since i'm graduating this year.

 

Actually, I might just use the cross-x lab group. Even though it's been flooded with porn ads of late.

 

 

That's not abusive so much as incorrect and easily beatable. just because your geographic area lets you get away with bad argumentation doesn't mean you should run it - if you want to actually get better, you should try less crappy ways to engage your opponents.

 

also, I don't think you're reading the bondgraham card correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe nuclear weapons have specially trained personnel to handle them. If you withdraw the personnel, I think it's reasonable that the weapons come with them. Just as if you closed a naval base, the ships would also come home.

 

I think this is probably (sadly) true. this means that there will be no "remove the personel only" affs with advantages based off of the country taking the US weapons (ex. remove the TNW operators from Turkey, --> Turkey taking the nukes)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not abusive so much as incorrect and easily beatable. just because your geographic area lets you get away with bad argumentation doesn't mean you should run it - if you want to actually get better, you should try less crappy ways to engage your opponents.

 

also, I don't think you're reading the bondgraham card correctly.

 

haha! alright man. very insightful, thank you for sharing your innate and infallible sense of correctness with us. if you decide to put that superior knowledge and judgement to use and contribute something other than insults, feel free.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haha! alright man. very insightful, thank you for sharing your innate and infallible sense of correctness with us. if you decide to put that superior knowledge and judgement to use and contribute something other than insults, feel free.

 

Chill out. He doesn't think he's Jesus, he just thinks that you're wrong.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haha! alright man. very insightful, thank you for sharing your innate and infallible sense of correctness with us. if you decide to put that superior knowledge and judgement to use and contribute something other than insults, feel free.

 

well, I have a few minutes between classes, so why not. i've only read a TNWs aff at one tournament this year but we'll see how this goes

 

first of all, the schell card you read as "framework" is literally only saying "gee, it sure does make us uncomfortable to imagine extinction." there is zero discussion in the card of "symbolic confrontation with... nuclear weapons" and whether that constitutes a comparatively advantageous approach to the status quo, meaning you literally don't have a justification for your framing mechanism, nor is there any mention of how the aff fits into it. small footnote - when cutting cards, it's pretty shady to cut things off in the middle of a sentence, let alone in the middle of a paragraph. include the complete paragraph, it's better citation practice.

 

next, your argument accomplishes nothing for you, because it's really not as exclusive as you think. there is no brightline established for how a judge should determine whether a disad is "germane to the topic of nuclear weapons." it seems to me that any disad that links to the plan (i.e. politics with a TNWs link) is relevant to a discussion of nukes - that is the link.

 

third, you're completely misreading this card. what it's saying is that we sometimes respond to the concept of extinction with repression or denial. while the card doesn't really make a thorough or well-implicated discussion of this denial, I don't think that's even relevant, because it doesn't seem like there's any link to a negative's "non-germane" disad... how is reading a generic disad link a denial or repression of the impacts of nuclear extinction? i mean, their disad probably has its own nuclear extinction impact, or some other means of extinction that i'm sure schell would consider just as psychologically discomforting. also, can you say denial of the nuclear war against the fourth world?

 

the little framework-y blip after that didn't really make sense to me. disads to the plan are always weighed against advantages to the plan. why the hell would the neg contest that framework?

 

my comment about bad debating practices based on geography arose out of the note in the beginning that your "framework" is placed to be a "hidden voter" and people in wyoming won't answer it anyway. i think (and you'll find most would agree) that trying to "hide" your arguments only makes them much less compelling because the judge might also not notice them, or be confused as to how they should be applied. if you're running good arguments, you shouldn't be afraid of your opponents engaging you on them, because they're good. if you're running bad arguments because you see strategic advantage in using them in janky ways, that just means you're helping to encourage the spread of bad arguments. if that's what you want, then whatever, but that only means you'll be that much less prepared when you actually have to debate someone good.

 

as for the bondgraham card, this argument is basically a K of your aff. bondgraham says that current calls for nuclear arms control constitute what he calls "anti nuclear nuclearism," wherein the US aims to subvert the relative nuclear multipolarity of the present by getting rid of other people's nukes so we can retain primacy by conventional means. the fact that you read a prolif bad impact to your aff is kind of hilarious, because your own card seriously calls you out on that, saying that "it's about other people's nuclear weapons, not the 99%... possessed by the United States," - rhetoric of foreign prolif being dangerous is what sustains anti-nuclear nuclearism. in other words, if the "status quo is headed towards omnicide," it's because of efforts like your 1AC.

 

apparently being able to read constitutes "superior knowledge and judgement" these days

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading nuclearism with TNWs is just dumb. If you're going to make it a K aff, you should look at USC's aff disclosure on the college caselist, they read a NATO/Threat con kind of advantage. Regardless, the policy advantages for TNWs are probably alot better anyway.

Edited by Arthur Schopenhauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the frame of arms control that defines both the problem and the solution. Arms control is about balancing, it ensures that the US will always need to have something to leverage against its enemies

Mutimer 2k

 

(David, The weapons state: Proliferation and the framing of security)

“As I demonstrated in Chapter 3…against the Soviet Union.”

 

The David Mutimer book is on Google books

 

The Mutimer argument has been run in the past on multiple topics. Its fairly decent.

 

If you want to check out USC on the case list here is HL's outline (scroll down a bit).

 

And in general, this article by Giroux is quite impressive on the issue of fear mongering, its too bad it isn't more specific to nuclear weapons. (although it does make the fear = racism/militarism argument).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The United States federal government should pass legislation recognizing the extermination and forced migration of Armenians in the early 19th century as genocide.

(the plan text could probably be written better, main idea is that the U.S. recognizes the armenian thing as genocide)

effectually topical because a ton of our troops and supplies that go to iraq go through turkey first, and they'll make us decrease that if we recognize the armenian issue as genocide

 

Is it possible to win this as being justifiably topical if all your advantages are predicated off of how sweet it would be if we recognized that issue as genocide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible to win this as being justifiably topical if all your advantages are predicated off of how sweet it would be if we recognized that issue as genocide?

 

Anything is possible... but probably not in this case.

 

You should just not be topical if you read this. Prepare for framework debates.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, I have a few minutes between classes, so why not. i've only read a TNWs aff at one tournament this year but we'll see how this goes...

I've never met anyone else who knew the proper use of the word 'janky'. It is for this reason only you have my respect. I see where you're coming from on bondgraham but i dont think you are 100% right. anti-nuclear nuclearism is only a bad thing because we hold onto our nukes. if we spread anti-prolif rhetoric AND take steps towards disarming ourselves, we're headed in the right direction.

i think a better argument against bondgraham is that plan just represents one of the small "substantive commitments to disarm" that we use to manipulate other nations. i mean, it's 90 baby nukes. removing them is a political maneuver if i've ever seen one.

 

Plan: The United States federal government should pass legislation recognizing the extermination and forced migration of Armenians in the early 19th century as genocide.

(the plan text could probably be written better, main idea is that the U.S. recognizes the armenian thing as genocide)

effectually topical because a ton of our troops and supplies that go to iraq go through turkey first, and they'll make us decrease that if we recognize the armenian issue as genocide

 

inherency problems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05armenia.html

 

and a bit of backlash

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0317/Armenian-genocide-talk-has-Turkey-threatening-to-expel-Armenians

 

unless you are going to garner some serious advantages off this genocide thing, seems like you'd be ahead to just.. you know. remove some troops from iraq.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan: The United States federal government should pass legislation recognizing the extermination and forced migration of Armenians in the early 19th century as genocide.

(the plan text could probably be written better, main idea is that the U.S. recognizes the armenian thing as genocide)

effectually topical because a ton of our troops and supplies that go to iraq go through turkey first, and they'll make us decrease that if we recognize the armenian issue as genocide

 

Is it possible to win this as being justifiably topical if all your advantages are predicated off of how sweet it would be if we recognized that issue as genocide?

 

I think you could use Iraq or Turkey for this.

 

I wouldn't do both in the same debate...because you link to twice as much and the neg has more room to run a PIC.

 

This should explain the link:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/turkey.html

 

Yeah...I don't imagine you will be winning any rounds off of that T interpretation....I think some significant framework research/strategy is a better ticket.

 

One framework/ballot argument could be genealogy. There are four or so pages from Political Genealogy After Foucault which are some of the best written on the subject.

 

I would think though a card which linked our current foreign policy or military in some way to makes it seem more germane.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this armenia aff is just stupid, don't do it

 

I've never met anyone else who knew the proper use of the word 'janky'. It is for this reason only you have my respect. I see where you're coming from on bondgraham but i dont think you are 100% right. anti-nuclear nuclearism is only a bad thing because we hold onto our nukes. if we spread anti-prolif rhetoric AND take steps towards disarming ourselves, we're headed in the right direction.

i think a better argument against bondgraham is that plan just represents one of the small "substantive commitments to disarm" that we use to manipulate other nations. i mean, it's 90 baby nukes. removing them is a political maneuver if i've ever seen one.

 

that's what i'm saying - if you spread anti-prolif rhetoric couched in efforts to remove weapons which are, frankly, not really effective deterrents anyway, you are anti-nuclear nuclearism. honestly, i don't understand why you would ever read this card given the substantive parts of your 1ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Though the lit is probably there to suggest that "pulling troops from A means they will be sent to B" i feel like the neg could just fiat the redeployment with a "send more troops to B" and have arguably more solvency. They could contest the case internal link and read disads against reducing troops in A. I feel like the affirmative would just be strategically behind in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...