Jump to content
Beastwick

Aff discusion

Recommended Posts

So far im looking at two affs, Ban Drones and assasinations, and TNW Turkey. Im having a hard time deciding what to run. So, pros, cons, and any other aff suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which camp put out assassinations? What advantages does it claim?

 

Drones and assassinations will probably result in lots of K (Nietzsche, Schmitt, and Capitalism), backfile check debates, and process counter plan debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of those three go with TNW. Most adv. ground and best lit (I assume).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither of them. Drones is untopical and TNWs is a terrible aff.

http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/10469612/Turkey-Lecture-Kevin-Kallmeyer-Pt-2

 

This, to an extent. The only advantage it really solves that can't be easily counterplanned out of is the Iran-Turkey relations advantage, from what I've seen. A lot of other advantages (Russia, NATO cohesion, etc) will be specific to the weapons being stored in Europe as a whole, not just Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin just says we think the anti-turkey aff disads are pretty decent.

I don't think that necessarily assumes K strategies.

 

At a minimum you opt out of Afghanistan and Iraq updates...except in relation to cutting them on the negative (which depending on the argument type you run may not change anything).

 

Arguably--that also makes the standard case arguments a little more predictable.

 

Both of those (Iraq and Afghanistan) certainly come with the built in advantage of inevitable pullout--but that also just means that external disads like politics have a big impact vs. an aff that only solves for 100 days of its claimed impact.

 

Given those inevitability problems--it could be that teams that roll half-and-half policy/critical will go all in on their critical arguments vs. Afghanistan and Iraq affirmatives. Are those the types of debates you want to have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please run TNWs and hit me. I would LOVE it.

As Jonathan Paul has been quoted by my partner: "Yeah, TNWs is a good aff. If you don't want to solve advantages."

 

Inevitably can only help - terminally non-unique. TNWs has no Obama Good link turns can match the link

 

Given those inevitability problems--it could be that teams that roll half-and-half policy/critical will go all in on their critical arguments vs. Afghanistan and Iraq affirmatives. Are those the types of debates you want to have?

 

And hell yes

 

Both of those (Iraq and Afghanistan) certainly come with the built in advantage of inevitable pullout--but that also just means that external disads like politics have a big impact vs. an aff that only solves for 100 days of its claimed impact.

WTH? and see above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far im looking at two affs, Ban Drones and assasinations, and TNW Turkey. Im having a hard time deciding what to run. So, pros, cons, and any other aff suggestions.

 

Obviously as you have read - you will lose 90% of you aff rounds on T if you read TNWs. Removing a tactical nuke from Turkey is the same as removing an M-16 from Iraq. Additionally - even if you were to run it - the advantage ground isn't too great. The camp affirmatives mainly had Iran prolif and Russian conflict as advantages however the internal links aren't too strong and easily counterplaned out of.

 

Ban drones affirmative, although still arguably untopical, is the better option. I recommend you check out the SDI drones affirmative - it's awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously as you have read - you will lose 90% of you aff rounds on T if you read TNWs. Removing a tactical nuke from Turkey is the same as removing an M-16 from Iraq.

 

Yes, eliminating forward deployed tactical nuclear presence in a country = removing some assault rifles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you check out the SDI drones affirmative - it's awesome

Eh, having debated it with some frequency there, its ok. Has some major structural problems with a lot of the advantages. There are definetely better affs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously as you have read - you will lose 90% of you aff rounds on T if you read TNWs. Removing a tactical nuke from Turkey is the same as removing an M-16 from Iraq.
I'm curious if this will be the gut reaction of some lay critics...(for instance via a boots on the ground interpretation).

 

Many of the definitions of presence, however, speak to the role of presence in deterrence. TNWs would meet these interps, which are in fact grounded in the literature.

 

As a preempt--I do think troops is fairly predictable & a fairly decent brightline.

 

I would not want to roll the dice on this interp (vs. the alternatives) when other affs were available--however it seems defensible, especially when used with a robust and offensive defense of reasonability on the military pressence topic.

 

Ps--I'm not sure there is any policy literature for your M-16s aff and certainly no solvency advocate specific to any of the topic countries--your slippery slope is hollow and contrived.

 

Both of those (Iraq and Afghanistan) certainly come with the built in advantage of inevitable pullout--but that also just means that external disads like politics have a big impact vs. an aff that only solves for 100 days of its claimed impact.

 

I don't understand why this is unclear. The timeframe of solvency minimizes the overall impact of the case due to inevitable pullout (assuming its similar type of pullout compared to the aff).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither of them. Drones is untopical and TNWs is a terrible aff.

http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/10469612/Turkey-Lecture-Kevin-Kallmeyer-Pt-2

 

I was also thinking Turkey or drones. What do you recommend as an aff outside of those 2? Keep in mind I'm in Kansas with about 50/50 lay/flow rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, eliminating forward deployed tactical nuclear presence in a country = removing some assault rifles

 

And turkey is topical in my mind. i mean theres almost not aff lit on troop withdrawal and the flexibility when there is is small. there wouldnt be a reason why they would include turkey in the topic. and if only troops were allowed the framers would have just worded it to decrease troops, not "presence" and almost all the famous cards that interpret presence include weapons. and its not equal to removing m16s. the difference is that m16's would be untopical by t substantial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m16's would be untopical by t substantial

 

This seems true at first. For instance this is an arrary of weapons they use (supposedly according to an Army MP):

 

M4 Carbine

M16 Assualt Rifle

M9 Pistols

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

M240 Machine Gun

M2 Machine Gun (.50 Caliber)

MK 19 Automatic Grenade Gun

M203 Grenade Launcher

 

However, again, unofficially, the M16 is the standard issue weapon along with an m9 sidearm. The later means its probably one of the single most "used" weapon besides the m9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And turkey is topical in my mind. i mean theres almost not aff lit on troop withdrawal and the flexibility when there is is small. there wouldnt be a reason why they would include turkey in the topic. and if only troops were allowed the framers would have just worded it to decrease troops, not "presence" and almost all the famous cards that interpret presence include weapons. and its not equal to removing m16s. the difference is that m16's would be untopical by t substantial

 

The big idea with it being untopical [in my mind] is that the nukes in Turkey are part of a 5-country NATO defense shield created in the Cold War to deter Soviet Rrrrusssia. There are actually 200 nukes in total, which means 120 are in the other 4 countries, which are Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Thus, the most legitimate T argument against nukes in Turkey is framer's intent- if the framer wanted us to discuss nukes in Turkey, he would have included the other 4 countries in the resolution as well. Then, even if they mention Stephen Bauschard's topic paper [the framer, in essence], the claim is that he lists potential aff ideas, not actual topical ones. Remember, he was trying to convince the board to accept his idea, so he made it as inviting as possible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big idea with it being untopical [in my mind] is that the nukes in Turkey are part of a 5-country NATO defense shield created in the Cold War to deter Soviet Rrrrusssia. There are actually 200 nukes in total, which means 120 are in the other 4 countries, which are Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Thus, the most legitimate T argument against nukes in Turkey is framer's intent- if the framer wanted us to discuss nukes in Turkey, he would have included the other 4 countries in the resolution as well. Then, even if they mention Stephen Bauschard's topic paper [the framer, in essence], the claim is that he lists potential aff ideas, not actual topical ones. Remember, he was trying to convince the board to accept his idea, so he made it as inviting as possible.

 

i mean in my mind if they included the 4 other countries it wouldnt work for 3 reasons

 

1. it would undeniably burst ground and theres not neccesarrily a lot of lit saying we want to withdraw nukes in all those other places unlike turkey which actually has that lit so they chose turkey cuz it actually has aff ground as oppposed to just having nuke weapons as a prerequisite to being in the topic

 

2. if all those other countires would chosen then it would become undeniable that nukes were meant to be in the topic. this overloads the amount of nuke affs to regular troop withdrawal affs which means the tables would turn and it would suddenly become un T to have a case that doesnt withdraw nukes because the resolution undeniably supports nuke withdrawal

 

3. and that would make it basically like the college topic. they worded it presence to keep the tnws posssibility availible. getting the same college topic means no research is involved which is as we all know the fundamental root of policy debate everyone would just go on open case list and mooch evidence.

2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems true at first. For instance this is an arrary of weapons they use (supposedly according to an Army MP):

 

 

 

However, again, unofficially, the M16 is the standard issue weapon along with an m9 sidearm. The later means its probably one of the single most "used" weapon besides the m9.

 

yeah i guess that makes sense. i doubt anyones going to argue m16 withdrawal though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was the interp the frames could have used ground forces or ground troops--they didn't. The left it vague for aff flexibility and a more holitic rather than exclusionary education for the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...