Jump to content
Frogs_7

Need Help to make a Neg. Argument on Afgan. Drones

Recommended Posts

I need help Making a Negative Case Argument on removing Drones in Afghanistan...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need help Making a Negative Case Argument on removing Drones in Afghanistan...

 

drones are selective when killing targets. without drones we would just invade counties. probably turning case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you should say is something like "after we taqke out drones warfare satys just as impersonal, except after removing drones they use patriot missles which kill way more"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't give you the set of arguments, but read up on the difference of drone use in Afganistand versus the drone use in Pakistan. They are different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need help Making a Negative Case Argument on removing Drones in Afghanistan...

 

1. well first off, run topicality. because drones dont count as military presance. and there are a few Top. files on drones specifically.

 

2. try your best to go line by line. and make annalitics in the 2AC and read info. on why drones are good. read reasons & evidance against what ever their evidance is.

if nothing else. run analitics that make sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone else is right. I think there are a couple areas where you can hurt this aff.

 

First, read two topicality violations. Define military presence to exclude weapons systems. Also read substantial, because the drone presence in afghanistan in a quantifiable sense is small, especially if the aff only removes the armed drones.

 

On-case, you can make some arguments for why drones are good. This literature is really easy to find. Try cutting cards from the article The year of the drone misinformation --this article indicts sources saying drones are inaccurate and cause collateral damage, and provides the most recent statistics I know of.

 

Off-case you have generic arguments. I think a reverse spending/futureweapons tradeoff disad is extremely strategic against this aff, particularly the critical variants, as it turns case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need help Making a Negative Case Argument on removing Drones in Afghanistan...

 

T:

T Military presence = troops

T Substantially = X%

 

Disads:

CMR links well

Terrorism DA, if they don't read a trsm advantage.

Read Politics or some other generic DA for the hell of it

 

Case arguments:

1. For all advantages not based on troops presence in Afghanistan, like ILaw, make the argument that there are enough drones outside of Afghanistan to trigger the links.

2. Some specific tips against advantages:

- Terrorism: Link Turn it, and look at their cards (they're probably pretty shitty.) Also, trsm impacts are generally pretty easy to defeat on the Internal Link level.

- I-Law: In addition to the argument above, Impact Turn it (I-Law bad, there are some good ones) and make some good alt cause arguments.

 

Im getting lazy and bored of this post, like I am of every drones aff I have ever seen so i'll stop.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what you should say is something like "after we taqke out drones warfare satys just as impersonal, except after removing drones they use patriot missles which kill way more"

 

Patriot Missiles are used to intercept Tactical Ballistic Missiles, like the Iraqi Scuds in the Gulf War and the Al Samoud 2 in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It's never been used as an offensive weapon, only to engage and intercept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...