Jump to content
bhn7

Fun neg ground

Recommended Posts

I'd be cutting PKK / kurdish independence da's like crazy.

 

Disarm CP will absorb many aff advantages, and arguably excludes many affs that'll presuppose the existence of the military post plan. Certainly most of their evidence will unless they're going hardcore K.

 

Surge CP: massive boost in forces, and then withdraw. Like delay, only spicier.

 

"We'll leave... through Iran/North Korea"

 

Local politics DAs will be tricky to cut but worth it.

 

Complete withdrawal would include the embassy & many liaison-type things, cp to keep them open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will probably be a new kind of a-spec/o-spec in which you have to specify the material or the mechanism to be removed. The problem is that it will have an ok point that stable neg da's and case args need a specified thing to be removed.

 

Surge CP sounds possible but it will have delayed advantages and some 2ac das.

 

T will be sooooooooo annoying.... but isn't it always. Substantial T could be a big thing.

 

everybody will get so good at Pro/anti-militarism because it will be in every round.

 

Draft everyone cps will be unearthed from the national service topic.

 

Overall i wanted the international actor topic... and they couldn't have picked a worse one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will probably be a new kind of a-spec/o-spec in which you have to specify the material or the mechanism to be removed. The problem is that it will have an ok point that stable neg da's and case args need a specified thing to be removed.

 

 

M-spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surge CP: massive boost in forces, and then withdraw. Like delay, only spicier.

 

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but this is permable.

 

In fact, perm "do the counterplan" is still consistent w/ the aff.

 

Arguably, the perm might be marginally anti-topical, but not undoable. There's nothing that say that parts of the perm can't be non-topical--otherwise no permutation would ever be possible.

 

I still think this line of research can be productive, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but this is permable.

 

In fact, perm "do the counterplan" is still consistent w/ the aff.

 

Arguably, the perm might be marginally anti-topical, but not undoable. There's nothing that say that parts of the perm can't be non-topical--otherwise no permutation would ever be possible.

 

I still think this line of research can be productive, however.

 

the perm severs out of immediacy, I would think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Local politics DAs will be tricky to cut but worth it.

 

 

QFA, foreign politics DA's are some of the most fun things to debate. And topics like this give you great links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iam run a termenator aff and neg with militarzation kritik from the national services topic gonna be sick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROBOTS R GONNA TAKE OVER BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

plan :usfg will reduce military from all places ................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the perm severs out of immediacy, I would think
1) No timeframe on the resolution or the plan--theres nothing to sever out of.

 

2) No timeframe on the counterplan.

--Means everything happens at almost functionally the same time. Your evidence isn't nuanced enough to isolate a net benefit from a couple seconds--in other words the net benefits to the counterplan link to the counterplan.

 

Also, you can shuffle the troops around with a perm to your hearts content and still have an immediate pullout of X amount of troops. (you just make the surge of troops that much bigger to offset). I'm not sure how that effects the type of permutation.

 

You might also be able to assert that normal means is not immediate. Although, I don't think this distinction gets me anywhere.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) No timeframe on the resolution or the plan--theres nothing to sever out of.

 

counter-interp - immediacy is implicit in normal means - I feel like that's probably least arbitrary and avoids people articulating a plan as delayed in order to avoid politics links or something.

 

2) No timeframe on the counterplan.

--Means everything happens at almost functionally the same time. Your evidence isn't nuanced enough to isolate a net benefit from a couple seconds--in other words the net benefits to the counterplan link to the counterplan.

maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I feel like the cp would have a timeframe. troop surges usually withdraw troops after the surge, like a while after. I'm sure the evidence advocating a surge and withdrawal puts a timeframe on it

 

Also, you can shuffle the troops around with a perm to your hearts content and still have an immediate pullout of X amount of troops. (you just make the surge of troops that much bigger to offset). I'm not sure how that effects the type of permutation.
this is what I was thinking, and I feel like this perm is illegitimate, I just don't know why. I think allowing perm: do plan (withdraw troops), then surge (add troops), then withdraw is infinitely regressive, because it makes PICs out of withdrawing certain types of troops/military presence uncompetitive (perm: withdraw troops and re-send the stuff that was PICed out of). In fact, delay perms in general are pretty messed up.

 

In fact, delay CPs in general are pretty messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is what I was thinking, and I feel like this perm is illegitimate, I just don't know why.
I was thinking more along the lines of a perm to pullout 200,000 and surge 1,000,000 is still a viable perm. (by adjusting the #s you get around to a functional perm do the C/P, but just with more troop adjustments).

 

I think a pretty relevant question--where do the troops come from (I don't think the counterplan authors will answer this--although they very well may)

 

Strategic thoughts about plan/perm vs. CP overall:

 

---The only disad to that perm is a spending argument that moving troops around is expensive (although the CP would bite this too).

 

---There is also an acclimation argument (troops take a while to get used to an area). I'm not sure how the literature supports (CP bites this too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think there's literature saying that referring to soldiers as "belonging" to the united states is biopolitical or something? Its PIC could be a good generic idea for next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more along the lines of a perm to pullout 200,000 and surge 1,000,000 is still a viable perm. (by adjusting the #s you get around to a functional perm do the C/P, but just with more troop adjustments).

 

Right, that's what I'm saying. If the aff can functionally reverse the plan (remove and add soldiers) through a permutation, there is basically no scenario for an "antitopical" CP having competition, and I don't think it's a stretch to think that troop surges are an important policy alternative to troop withdrawal

 

It'd probably be an intrinsic perm anyway, which is its own set of troubles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone think there's literature saying that referring to soldiers as "belonging" to the united states is biopolitical or something? Its PIC could be a good generic idea for next year.

 

"Its" is probably the worst word in the topic, but i think that some form of that word is key to make sure that there aren't plans to withdraw other countries troops. Also, teams will be smart enough to not put that word in there resolution for Topicality reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Its" is probably the worst word in the topic, but i think that some form of that word is key to make sure that there aren't plans to withdraw other countries troops. Also, teams will be smart enough to not put that word in there resolution for Topicality reasons.

 

1) use teh grammarz plz!

 

2) I'm not saying "its" shouldn't be in the rez

 

3)

teams will be smart enough to not put that word in there resolution for Topicality reasons.

To NOT put "its" in the plan text (which is what you meant, not "'there' resolution") for topicality reasons is backwards. The aff SHOULD have "its" in the plan text, otherwise the aff plan could be to take all japanese troops out of japan, functionally invading the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
counter-interp - immediacy is implicit in normal means - I feel like that's probably least arbitrary and avoids people articulating a plan as delayed in order to avoid politics links or something.

 

Counter-interpretation - counterplans have to be functionally competitive based off of the mandates of the plan text. Any permutation only has to defend the entirety of plan text. The counterplan is functionally "Surge troops and then do the plan". Because the counterplan involves the entirety of the plan text, it is not a genuine test of the opportunity cost of the affirmative plan. It is merely adding something else to the beginning of the plan to make it artificially competitive. In a world of any other interpretation, the delay, consult, condition, sunsets provision, and really every other lame immediacy-based counterplan becomes legitimate.

 

Spiking out of politics links is irrelevant - we can agree that the affirmative can not *clarify* what their timeframe is to avoid links to disads. That clearly decimates negative ground. However, agreeing that 2ac clarification of timeframe is bad is *not* the same as granting the neg competition for these counterplans that compete based off something they assert in the plan text.

 

More simply said, if aff doesn't specify, the neg can't compete off of it, but the aff can't clarify later on to avoid links. If the neg reads evidence about the likelihood of normal means for the plan, the aff will have to defend that as far as disad links go. But competing off of normal means is a pretty horrible way to debate - it makes leveraging solvency deficits unreasonably difficult. Justifies things like saying normal means = non-recycled paper, CP: use recycled paper, among the counterplans mentioned above.

 

As an aside, this all obviously can arguably change if the aff agrees to defend the immediacy of the plan in cross-x. That is a clarification of what the plan does, which is then arguably intrinsically tied to the plan text. I'm assuming a world of perm: do CP in which the aff refused to specify immediacy or the neg did not ask in cross-x.

 

this is what I was thinking, and I feel like this perm is illegitimate, I just don't know why. I think allowing perm: do plan (withdraw troops), then surge (add troops), then withdraw is infinitely regressive, because it makes PICs out of withdrawing certain types of troops/military presence uncompetitive (perm: withdraw troops and re-send the stuff that was PICed out of). In fact, delay perms in general are pretty messed up.

 

No, it doesn't make that perm legitimate at all because that perm would be intrinsic - it adds the notion of re-sending troops that was PICed out of after the fact. The plan only says send them all together - cp says everything but these. Plan then says do counterplan, then send the troops originally in our plan. That concept of different times of deployment is present in neither the plan nor the counterplan. That is a timeframe permutation, which is intrinsic because it adds a concept neither in the plan or the counterplan.

 

The original surge CP, however, provides the element of timeframe differential that is not present in the plan text, which means perm: do cp is not intrinsic.

 

I'd be cutting PKK / kurdish independence da's like crazy.

 

Local politics DAs will be tricky to cut but worth it.

 

These seem like good ideas that can be well-developed.

 

Disarm CP will absorb many aff advantages, and arguably excludes many affs that'll presuppose the existence of the military post plan. Certainly most of their evidence will unless they're going hardcore K.

 

What is the net benefit? Permutation: do both. Presupposing the military is not a mandate of the plan, they DECREASE forces. DECREASING them more (to zero) is not severance.

 

Surge CP: massive boost in forces, and then withdraw. Like delay, only spicier.

 

Perm: Do CP (this was talked about above).

 

Complete withdrawal would include the embassy & many liaison-type things, cp to keep them open.

 

Resolution says military forces and/or police forces. Embassies are under the State Department, not the military. Plan wouldn't effect them.

 

You'd definitely need some *really* good evidence to make this competitive that probably has to assume the language of the plan text.

Edited by kevinwy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...