Jump to content
D.Clark011

War on Drugs

Recommended Posts

Is anyone interested in helping cut this aff?

 

BAckground:

 

In afghanistan opium is obviously sold on the black market, which is worth about 4 billion dollars to Afghanistans GDP. The U.S. spends about 2.9 billion dollars annually in regularly and supplemental counternarcoticsforeign assistance and defense funding for programs designed to eradicate narcotics, largely opium.

 

There are arguements from the Obama admin themselves that says that this is the most ineffective and wasteful program ever created.

 

WHat could advantages be oof of this and who is in to cut it?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft power for a advantage? The link would be the common person aka the ones most likely to become terrorist would see this in a good way of the U.S geting out of thier lives. On the flip side however I think there are a lot of turns and links because of the U.S being seen as giving up a large part of the international drug war.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soft power for a advantage? The link would be the common person aka the ones most likely to become terrorist would see this in a good way of the U.S geting out of thier lives. On the flip side however I think there are a lot of turns and links because of the U.S being seen as giving up a large part of the international drug war.

 

One big turn to deal with is the idea of re-talibanization as lately they have started to lose a footing in drug sale and production hurting there overall funding. This was a big issue on the college topic on the agriculture topic. But on the flip side of this there could be a good spending advantage even though that story has been played out and the brink for not doing plan would be horrible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry but that article doesn't make the aff non-inherent. The administration has only vowed to stop fighting the drug war on the farmland and start fighting it at distribution centers and taliban funding sources, which this article indicates. But the good news is the turns that I had mentioned before become a lot easier to answer, as the squo now leaves the taliban open to regain farmland meaning they can grow more and won't have to worry about re-talibanization. Though it may hurt your overall advantage choices, it will also give the affirmative great ground while severally limiting the neg strategy as this could be seen as a partial pullout and no impacts have occurred yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd that the administration is phasing it out crop eradication vs. ending it given this statement by Holbrooke:

 

Holbrooke said the United States has “wasted hundreds of millions of dollars” on crop eradication. “The amount of hectarage we were destroying was inconsequential, and the amount of money we were denying the Taliban was zero,” he said.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interdiction good lit is much better than interdiction bad

Most of the aff cards are old and discuss eradication

 

Trust me. I worked on the GDS Afghanistan Drug Interdiction aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interdiction good lit is much better than interdiction bad

Most of the aff cards are old and discuss eradication

 

Trust me. I worked on the GDS Afghanistan Drug Interdiction aff

 

Really?

 

It would seem hard to answer the "drives it underground" or "hydra head" style arguments that surround the drug debate without very specific comparative evidence. Is it that the neg includes better comparative evidence??

 

And you have to win security trumps human rights (ie there are big social control arguments to be had).

 

Troop shift as a solvency takeout can handle some of those concerns--but thats a problem for almost every affirmative.

 

Perhaps an interesting opportunity to write an aff that blends policy and critical advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the kritikal advantage (WoD) lit is based on Columbia.

And there is much better neg comparative evidence

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think about the counter plan.

 

You still have to get a critical DA to the aff, though (also a critical disad that your counterplan doesn't link to). (Or impact turn the affirmative or win framework). So basically where you would be against another K affirmative.

 

Most all the affirmatives on this topic have to deal with potential counterplan solvency from another aff (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Japan all have decent hegemony internals--I'm sure the others do as well. Turkey and Kuwait probably do--but not to the extent that the first 3 do)

 

Plus running a topical counterplan is a bit of a gut check--unless you already run that as your affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In afghanistan opium is obviously sold on the black market, which is worth about 4 billion dollars to Afghanistans GDP.

 

Sounds like a feasible advantage would be an increase in opium production substantially helps Afghan's economy. I'm certain that's pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a feasible advantage would be an increase in opium production substantially helps Afghan's economy. I'm certain that's pretty good.

 

Much better lit about how it funds terrorism and destabilizes the government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much better lit about how it funds terrorism and destabilizes the government

 

Thats not neccisarily true. Infact, I have pretty good card that says that Afghanistan's economy pretty much revolves around opium, as like, there only other "export" is terrorism (yay). Really, Afghanistan wouldn't have an economy if not for opium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not neccisarily true. Infact, I have pretty good card that says that Afghanistan's economy pretty much revolves around opium, as like, there only other "export" is terrorism (yay). Really, Afghanistan wouldn't have an economy if not for opium.

 

1) one card will not help against over 9,000 cards

 

2) Many people talk about restructuring the Afghan economy to stop basing it off a terrorism-funding product

 

3) Collapse of government --> collapse of econ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) one card will not help against over 9,000 cards

 

2) Many people talk about restructuring the Afghan economy to stop basing it off a terrorism-funding product

 

3) Collapse of government --> collapse of econ

 

1. Obviously, which is why extensions were created.

 

2. Restructuring takes money, time, and effort. Is it worth it and will it produce results? And heg would be very problematic.

3. Collapse of econ. = collapse of gov., too (as if the government was stable in the first place, which is a uniqueness problem.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1% Increase in economy == 5% increase in terrorist capability

 

Time+Money of restructuring < Benefits

 

Aff is also empirically denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the odd flow of conversation above, I hope I've gotten the various sides correct:

 

Collapse of econ. = collapse of gov., too (as if the government was stable in the first place, which is a uniqueness problem.)
This is probably more of an issue for the negative. The affirmative gets to frame their argument in a:

1) Problem Now (instability, drugs)

2) Solution

 

vs. the neg.

1) Uniqueness: Problem going away

2) Link: You make it worse.

 

Even in the case of corruption as an alternative causality or solvency mitigator--given try or die--in the abscence of a counterplan--the affirmative will have a comparative advantage to the status quo.

 

Assuming this goes the opposite way than I initially thought:

1) Get evidence which is predictive of future peace in the near future or a trend toward relative stability (ie we've moved from 75 deaths per month to 45).

2) Counterplan to solve the uniqueness issue (ie negotiations/development aid/conflict resolution/something that solves terrorism or corruption)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be a problem for the neg. If we want to ensure stability we should allow the opium business to persist, at least for the short term. Economically restructuring could happen, but at first it would probably destabilize and possible create more of a problem.

 

I definitely think economic reconstruction is out of the question, if at least for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...