Jump to content
ohheywhatsup?!

[RFD] [M] Round 321: [MILITARY] kkkkkkkkk (aff) vs. Ohheywhatsup?! (neg)

Recommended Posts

This is so far one of the best debates I have ever experienced

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait the racism part or the actual arguments?

Both

 

I am also shocked that there is a topicality contention in a counterplan that ISN'T an attempt for an instant-win (none of judges are hypotesters, rite?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is so far one of the best debates I have ever experienced

lol sarcasm?? or is it because there was a consult japan in the 1nc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol sarcasm?? or is it because there was a consult japan in the 1nc?

Because there was consult japan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey sorry guys, Ill post up the 2NC later today, sorry Ive had a lot of things going on: (internet crash, and my grandmas in the hospital). Ill have the block up ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yayyy

 

cross-x:

1) you said that obama sent 30k troops to afghanistan, doesn't that mean that your impacts are inevitable? If not, how many troops do we need to surge to trigger your impact??

 

2) Your NK daily news card, it says that "

Just 23% of the country's soldiers and 12% of its police force can work without American or NATO support". Doesn't that mean that without American troops helping other 77% of afghan solders, more instability occurs??

 

 

3) Your link on the surge still doesn't make sense. The Kelly 04 card says "

It hasn't been determined which other units will leave or where they will go, a Pentagon spokesman said. " How can you actually prove that it will be stationed in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

4) Could you exactly explain to me why is offshore balancing bad?

 

5) On heg link turn, you said that NK is not going to attack U.S./ROK forces. Give me some reasons and warrants.

 

6) you said that our 1AC evidence admits that pulling out troops cause fast decline of heg. Exactly which evidence are you referring to?

 

7) So only uniqueness evidence that you read in this entire heg debate is this piece of Bandow 2009 evidence. Does it assume the passage of recent health care bill and national debt that makes maintaining bases in other places impossible?

 

8) Is forward basing ONLY way to have influence on other nations?

 

9) So your kagan 07 card in the heg overview, it says that withdrawal causes japan to be more agreeisve. Considering that the plan only withdraws from South Korea, how can they act aggresively while U.S. forces still stationed in Japan??

Edited by kkkkkkkkk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yayyy

 

cross-x:

1) you said that obama sent 30k troops to afghanistan, doesn't that mean that your impacts are inevitable? If not, how many troops do we need to surge to trigger your impact??

 

no because our link evidence proves that the sq 30K troops + The troops from ROK would be enough to trigger your impact

 

2) Your NK daily news card, it says that "

Just 23% of the country's soldiers and 12% of its police force can work without American or NATO support". Doesn't that mean that without American troops helping other 77% of afghan solders, more instability occurs??

 

no but again your troops cause our brink

 

3) Your link on the surge still doesn't make sense. The Kelly 04 card says "

It hasn't been determined which other units will leave or where they will go, a Pentagon spokesman said. " How can you actually prove that it will be stationed in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

We have already stabilized and surged Iraq

 

4) Could you exactly explain to me why is offshore balancing bad?

 

because it doesnt solve, as our arguments say in the 2NC

 

5) On heg link turn, you said that NK is not going to attack U.S./ROK forces. Give me some reasons and warrants.

 

U.s. is a major force and even your 1AC evidence says in the context of the cards that U.S. is a major force and NK wont act while U.S. forces are in ROK.

 

6) you said that our 1AC evidence admits that pulling out troops cause fast decline of heg. Exactly which evidence are you referring to?

 

you Bandow cards

 

7) So only uniqueness evidence that you read in this entire heg debate is this piece of Bandow 2009 evidence. Does it assume the passage of recent health care bill and national debt that makes maintaining bases in other places impossible?

 

No because Heg doesnt have to be in economic or politcal matters, it can be measured in other ways

 

8) Is forward basing ONLY way to have influence on other nations?

 

No, but its certainly one of the most effective.

 

9) So your kagan 07 card in the heg overview, it says that withdrawal causes japan to be more agreeisve. Considering that the plan only withdraws from South Korea, how can they act aggresively while U.S. forces still stationed in Japan??

 

because it would still effect Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there arguments coming? I take time to flowthis stuff, and y'all are now wasting my time - as anyone knows, that's one of my major pet peeves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Need more judges? Or do you have enough?

 

I'll also judge if you want to include Banana to the panel (to bring it back to an odd number of 5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a non-official judge, I think I can render a verdict. On face, I thought the 2AR did a much better job of summing up the debate than the 2NR. Here are issues that didn't matter:

 

(Highlight my text to see my reasons and decision)

 

The CP Theory: none of this came into my decision. The voting issues are never developed well enough for me to even consider them.

 

Surge: I'm not sure what the point of this DA was from the beginning, as the CP was non-conditional. I mean, the only way the negative gets it as a net benefit is if the CP takes a long time to pass, and that's not an argument the neg wants to lose. I really don't think the 2NR effectively kicks out of the DA as is. "Extend the 1AR" arguments doesn't mean anything. The instability impact from surging is extended... but with no explanation at all in the 2NR. The 2AR, on the other hand, explains a couple of reasons why troops would be important to stability. If I grant the "extend 1AR arguments" line, the only thing that mitigates the turn is the argument that there is no money for a surge. I don't think it rises to a total take out, as it's not explained at all in the 2NR. But once again, I'm not sure why the CP wouldn't get the turns as well. This whole side of the debate is such a muck that I'd rather ignore it if I could.

 

Now to the issues that do matter:

 

Hegemony: The 2AR goes for the withdrawal inevitable argument from the strangest vantage point - the CP withdrawals too! So the DA is inevitable, unless consultation somehow changes the hegemony dynamics. On the CP debate, this comes up with a heg turn from the negative, and the card is reasonable good. The 2AR goes for the Carroll evidence that says consultation kills heg, but I'm not sure if I buy the aff argument, which is that consulting on things unrelated to Japan hurt leadership. I mean, Japan probably cares if we're pulling out of South Korea. It's not like the CP consults with Japan over feeding the homeless in Chicago. The only other part of the heg debate was about whether North Korea will attack or not, and this really was like two ships passing in the night (i.e. no clash). Both sides were having the debate on different parts of the flow (at least for me). The negative has an analytic in the 2NC that says that NK won't attack with U.S. presence, which the 1AR doesn't address specifically, but does pull through all the evidence about U.S. presence being a tripwire and that any miscalc will lead to war. I'd tend to favor the argument that we're a tripwire, so a NK attack is in the game (and so is the Korea advantage). So I'm giving the CP some mitigation of the heg impact, and I mean some because heg decline is supposed to be inevitable anyway. But the CP seems to preserve heg better than the aff, so that works as a net benefit (not that there is any impact analysis in the 2NR...)

 

CP: A big issue is timeframe on the CP debate. The KLINGNER card (in three speeches, you guys missed the second n, which made searching for the card annoying), takes a real long time. In the non-underlined portion, it says 7-9 years... why isn't that part underlined?!?!?! I have no idea how CX admitting that plan occurs immediately somehow effects the CP timeframe. Unless the negative is arguing that they fiat that consultation occurs instantaneously, or that the CP is to consult while enacting the plan (which makes even less sense), there is at least some timeframe advantage for the aff. And I'm giving them a good deal of leeway, as the negative never grasps the timeframe debate. At all. The fact that it would take longer to phase out all the troops does work against the tripwire Korea advantage and the SK-Japan relations advantage to some extent (although that's not really explained), but it's not a total take out. So the plan can access the Korea advantage and Relations as net benefits against the CP.

 

Alliance Net Benefit: The negative block doesn't effectively extend through the alliance advantage for some reason. Solving two nuclear wars is brought up in the 2NR. The affirmative never seems to address the alliance advantage for some reason. But here's the thing (and why the aff doesn't argue this, I don't know)... there's no evidence read that the alliance isn't strong already! Sure, the CP may make the alliance stronger, but there's no evidence or arguments why the aff wouldn't still avoid the nuclear wars because relations will stay good. So the CP gets some net benefit of putting off nuclear wars that the aff may not put off.

 

China Turns: The 2AC turn card is really not that good. It doesn't say anything about consulting with China. And the negative could answer the argument pretty easily, as we consult with Japan ALL THE TIME without China (especially since 2007). But that's not actually part of the debate until the 2NR. The 2AR could have done a much better job of explaining how China would perceive the consultation as a threat - maybe rebalancing of troop deployments would be used to encircle China more, yada yada yada. I don't see how the 2NR's extension of the Curtis evidence addresses the China turn - it seems to feed the 2AR argument that China will be freaked out because we're plotting all these "good deeds". So at best, I give the aff a small nuclear war advantage on this turn.

 

 

So the final score card is:

 

CP: Heg + Alliance

Plan: Korea + Relations + China Freak Out with better time frame

 

Looking at the impacts and considering who I felt did the better weighing in the 2*R's, I would definitely vote for the affirmative.

Edited by fahrenba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for positng the 2AR. I will flow it tonight and hopefuly have a decision shortly there after. Please remember that my perspective on this debate will be decidedly old-school..lol.

 

I think this would work better if the official judges posted first and the kibitzers after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post my decision publicly..but...I do have substantive comments for both debaters, and I would like to send those out in private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RFD: Close debate. I vote aff. The negative doesn't have an adequate response to the Klingner evidence, which means it's less likely than the plan to solve the quickly escalating North Korea War advantage. Since you're not winning that the consult CP solves the affirmative, the only way for you to win is to argue that the alliance net benefit outweighs the aff. Unfortunately, you're mishandling an (underdeveloped) analytic argument that argues that the alliance won't hold if the US is fighting a war in the Koreas. There's also a risk of their Glosserman evidence that an alliance would anger China and prevent Asian stability.

 

Notes: I was frustrated by the lack of strategic thinking done by both debaters. As a judge, I am probably kinder to consult counterplans than most, but the way it was run in this debate and responded to was strategically problematic.

 

1NC: The consult counterplan should NOT be unconditional. That prevents you from going for the surge DA or heg DA that you set up in the 1NC because it links to the counterplan. The main strategic usefulness of consult counterplans is that you can put 5-10 average to strong answers on every 2AC response to make the 1AR a nightmare. This only works when the consult counterplan is conditional though--if it's unconditional, the 1AR can take their entire 5 minutes (or 1200 words) to respond to your 5 minutes of 1NR extensions. If you do opt to make the consult counterplan unconditional (again, not recommended), you need far more stronger arguments/cards in the 1NC to make it seem like a credible threat.

 

2AC: Considering that the consult counterplan is unconditional, you are spending more time than you should be on the surge DA and heg DA and not spending enough time on the consult cp (ironically). First, you don't need to answer either DA in-depth because the judge is stuck with evaluating the world of the counterplan--you just need to make one or two arguments for why the disads link equally to the counterplan. Instead, your time is better spent explaining in-depth why the counterplan doesn't solve the case and putting a lot of well-developed turns against us-japan relations (your China thing is going in the right direction, but my guess is other countries have animosity towards the alliance... for example, South Korea would probably dislike it if they aren't consulted but Japan is). There are also plenty of turns independently for why the alliance is bad.

 

1NR: The 2AC only has three round-winning substantive arguments in the 2AC (the Jamie Carroll heg argument, the China turn, and timeframe). Why you don't spend more time debunking these (especially the timeframe argument) is baffling for me. The one argument you make against timeframe is that "the plan happens immediately so the counterplan happens immediately"-- which is baseless. If it's true that the plan action happens immediately, the only way for the counterplan to be arguably competitive is by delaying the plan. The aff does a good enough job saying that consultation would take far too long to solve the advantages.

 

1AR: Again, too much time on the surge and heg. Your decision to not go for perm do both in this instance is unstrategic. Especially since the negative keeps claiming that consultation and the plan action happens immediately, that gives a reason why the counterplan is merely plan plus. The consult cp bad theory should have definitely been expounded on in the 1AR to give the 2NR a hard time (and consult cp bad theory arguments tend to be very persuasive to many judges).

 

2NR/2AR: The 2NR needs to figure out what the 2AR's best arguments are on the counterplan and sit on them. The 2AR needs to figure out what the best argument the 2NR has is (the alliance net benefit) and spend more time killing its credibility. The main reason why this debate was close was because neither side correctly identified and clashed on the nexus question of the debate--I wouldn't be surprised if this is a split decision because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...