Jump to content
LiamTheGreat

Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

also, i'm working on a remove nukes from turkey aff. if anyone wants to collab, hit me up.

 

If its not to late to still join in on this, I'm in. I've got State in policy in a few weeks. So i won't be able to be as active as I'd like for a little bit. But after that, I'm all in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turkey w/Aremenia and Kurdistan (and something else?) seems like a great policy aff.

 

Armenian Genocide Politx - Hooch's break round politics at UGA sickest DA ever

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?

 

 

Really? You think a lot of our Iraq troops go through Turkey? You need to do some research. They go through Kuwait. That is the purpose of our military troops stationed in Kuwait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? You think a lot of our Iraq troops go through Turkey? You need to do some research. They go through Kuwait. That is the purpose of our military troops stationed in Kuwait.

 

and that's not even the best reason why this aff is dumb

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?

 

This really sound horribly F-x T. There is probably evidence that says that Turkey is just bluffing.

Much better to claim Armenian Genocide resolution as an contention and not as the plan (Withdrawl => Resolution passes, not Resolution => Withdrawl)

Of course, What do I know, I'm just out of a horrible novice year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and that's not even the best reason why this aff is dumb

I think that the best part of this whole thread, is the complete disconnect from the reality of how our military works. I are really hoping that I do not have to give lessons after every debate that I watch this year. I really wish that people would do background research on this topic, and all topic really, saw the same thing on this years topic. The topic has been out how long, people have plenty of time to do background research on how things actually work. Cut some normal means cards...something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The United States should substantially reduce military and police presence in Iraq by utilizing the Internet to produce a simulation informing the international community that a substantial amount of troops are withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

 

Possible Inherency:

[1a] More effective military maneuvers in the past [attitudinal]

[1b] Larger budget previously available for military spending

 

Possible Harms:

[1] Terrorism

[2a] US Heg low

[2b] US-Russian Relations Bad

 

Possible Significance:

[1] Religious War/s

[2] Nuclear War

 

Possible Solvency:

[1] Terrorism declines as the simulation of military presence shrinks

[2] Unhiring Blackwater gains international favor

[3] Simulating retreat saves US-Russia relations

 

Possible Advantages:

[1] Terrorism

[2] Oil

[3] Spending

[4] Timeframe

[5] Obama capitol

[6] Iraqi brain drain

[7] Poppy seed society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The United States should substantially reduce military and police presence in Iraq by utilizing the Internet to produce a simulation informing the international community that a substantial amount of troops are withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

 

 

 

would the usfg actually be withdrawing troops from iraq and the simulation functions as a way to inform the whole world about it? or is it completely fake and we don't actually withdraw troops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
completely fake. so much is based on simulation. this plan would break possible links to some, NOT all, disads, kritiks, counterplans.

 

yeah thats not effectually topical, or extra topical or anything. Its just plain not topical so as much as it may have other advantages, u won't be winning many t debates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
completely fake. so much is based on simulation. this plan would break possible links to some, NOT all, disads, kritiks, counterplans.

 

lol baudrillard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media simulation affirmative (aka lying):

On the policy level this solves for almost nothing. Any risk of a leak is a HUGE disadvantage. After a leak that we lied-- we couldn't be trusted by any international power. Impact = alliances, soft power, and hegemony.

 

Also, it only has the effect of making Iran and North Korea thinking were drawing back--and provoking an unneccessary war. At least if we really pull out we are isolated--we don't have to intervene. If were still there--suddenly we are in the midst of a potentially huge conflict.

 

Political Capital as a 1AC Case Advantage

Initially claiming political (aka Obama political capital) advantages, unless its a critical affirmative to prove a point, doesn't make sense generally unless the team you are hitting isn't good at debating politics or perhaps isn't prepared to debate politics.

 

Also, the counterplan to just do the impact can create a decent time trade off for the negative.

Scenario: Impact story is tax cuts good.

Counterplan: USFG will pass tax cuts.

The permutation does nothing. Its a super simple and semi-obvious advantage counterplan.

 

The other team can counterplan to do a specific policy action which increases/decreases capital (this might amount to a topical counterplan).

 

The issue of significance:

 

Possible Significance:

[1] Religious War/s

[2] Nuclear War

 

In the case of most affirmatives this is just:

1) A matter of troop numbers

2) Harms (aka harms = significance)

 

In terms of your affirmative I believe this is:

--your rationale for personal advocacy.

--although I guess you could say your harms.

--I think this would also include a redefinition of "reduce" or "pressense"--to include perceptions. If perceptions are then included in topical action--your solvency would speak to significance to a greater degree.

 

If this is supposed to be a critical affirmative I suggest:

1) A critique of media society

2) An explanation of what the framework is.

 

 

Plan: The United States should substantially reduce military and police presence in Iraq by utilizing the Internet to produce a simulation informing the international community that a substantial amount of troops are withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

 

Possible Inherency:

[1a] More effective military maneuvers in the past [attitudinal]

[1b] Larger budget previously available for military spending

 

Possible Harms:

[1] Terrorism

[2a] US Heg low

[2b] US-Russian Relations Bad

 

Possible Significance:

[1] Religious War/s

[2] Nuclear War

 

Possible Solvency:

[1] Terrorism declines as the simulation of military presence shrinks

[2] Unhiring Blackwater gains international favor

[3] Simulating retreat saves US-Russia relations

 

Possible Advantages:

[1] Terrorism

[2] Oil

[3] Spending

[4] Timeframe

[5] Obama capitol

[6] Iraqi brain drain

[7] Poppy seed society

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The United States should substantially reduce military and police presence in Iraq by utilizing the Internet to produce a simulation informing the international community that a substantial amount of troops are withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

 

I cannot think of any possible advantage that might actually win a round with this that doesn't involve Baudrillard.

 

1. If we're only saying we're reducing military presence and not actually, then a) you're not fucking topical in any sense, and B) there's no way to gain access to anything predicated off of removing troops because YOU AREN'T REMOVING TROOPS.

 

2.

Any risk of a leak is a HUGE disadvantage. After a leak that we lied-- we couldn't be trusted by any international power.... Also, it only has the effect of making Iran and North Korea thinking were drawing back--and provoking an unneccessary war. At least if we really pull out we are isolated--we don't have to intervene. If were still there--suddenly we are in the midst of a potentially huge conflict.

 

This.

 

But if you're going for Baudrillard, go for it. Although I still don't see how you'll really win on the whole T thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder in a league which stresses significance if critical affirmatives are viable. And its possible that doesn't reflect the league.

 

Also, I assume others are thinking about this and similar affirmatives.

 

But if you're going for Baudrillard, go for it.

 

Agreed. I'm not deep on Baudrillard and he does criticize Foucault as I recall...but even given this I think I would include typical critiques of international relations a la critical international relations theory (realism bad) and threat construction (from On Security and other books). Scott Phillips at the 3NR suggests I believe 9 additional books (beyond On Security) to think about in terms of critical international relations theory and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was assuming we would all know that this is Baudrillard-based critical affirmative, with a definition of presense=by media/simulation.

 

A simulation of withdrawing can give the military/police an advantage in what they are trying to accomplish (I leave this vernacular general, because I have no earthly idea).

 

It would be Baudrillard based but also with 'policy' [versus theory] evidence in the solvency.

 

It is a kritikal affirmative, and does make sense, but it's one of those that you see every year that inverts the position of the affirmative. That is, no, this plan doesn't "really" or "actually" reduce troops, thereby the entire case is situated around harms/solvency/advantages that are based on the status quo.

 

I think it would be fun; I'm not sure how impactful it could be, and T violations are fun, but not if they show up every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a particularly tricky/intuitive reading of Baudrillard. you may as well just read debate disney or embrace simulation of war via the hillman aff we were talking about a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was assuming we would all know that this is Baudrillard-based critical affirmative, with a definition of presense=by media/simulation.

 

A simulation of withdrawing can give the military/police an advantage in what they are trying to accomplish (I leave this vernacular general, because I have no earthly idea).

 

It would be Baudrillard based but also with 'policy' [versus theory] evidence in the solvency.

 

It is a kritikal affirmative, and does make sense, but it's one of those that you see every year that inverts the position of the affirmative. That is, no, this plan doesn't "really" or "actually" reduce troops, thereby the entire case is situated around harms/solvency/advantages that are based on the status quo.

 

I think it would be fun; I'm not sure how impactful it could be, and T violations are fun, but not if they show up every round.

 

this still doesn't make sense to me, and I'm relatively familiar with baudrillard. what exactly are you trying to accomplish strategically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this still doesn't make sense to me, and I'm relatively familiar with baudrillard. what exactly are you trying to accomplish strategically?

 

yeah, this ^ is sort of the essence of what i was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The USFG should substantially reduce its military in South Korea by sending its troops to invade North Korea.

 

War good, United Korea good, Hegemony good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan: The USFG should substantially reduce its military in South Korea by sending its troops to invade North Korea.

 

extra-T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
extra-T?

 

Yeah. That really a problem with all the cool plan ideas I have for next year.

Edited by 1-5debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...