Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RomaSeeEcs

So the meet I was going to this saturday got canceled -.-

Recommended Posts

Just downloaded the case here are my notes let me know if you don't understand.

 

Your inherency card is from May 2010, the Japanese Prime minister changed last summer that means it doesn't assume the current situation which has changed a lot.

 

Gharib 8 is about Iraq and Afghanistan replace it here is the relevant line "often citing the number of troops deployed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

 

Same thing about Murline 7 both cards are about how Afghanistan and Iraq overstretch us.

 

This wouldn't be a problem if BBC News 6 said Japan could fill-in those wars and help but it doesn't. Which means you don't overcome these alt causes.

 

Now the next scenario about Japan defense being key to east asian stability is pretty good. However you don't have a terminal impact I would use the Landay evidence I have posted it at the bottom.

 

For the Chinese modernization scenario your evidence is ok, I worry about the tension though with saying that Japan needs an army and that China would stop modernizing. You might just want to go more with Japan deterrence is good, more like the bottom of that contention, because it would be hard to stop Chinese modernization if Japan militarized.

 

The last contention seems ok a little heavy on terminal impacts, I'm not really sure if you need so many terminal impacts (for instance does coral need like three separate terminal impacts).

 

This is the most likely scenario for nuclear war- Asia lacks organizations and interdependence that prevent war elsewhere

Landay, Knight-Ridder National Security and Intelligence senior correspondent, 3-10-2000

[Jonathan, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, "Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian conflicts," l/n

 

The 3,700-mile arc that begins at the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea and ends on the glacier where Indian and Pakistani troops skirmish almost every day has earned the dubious title of most dangerous part of the world.

Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe.

"Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster."

In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month.

For America, the stakes could hardly be higher.

There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime.

In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross pointed out (what I think) are the two biggest holes.

 

1. The inherency - Now I know you won't lose on inherency, but with a good, updated, and strategic inherency card you can use it to gain leverage on disads and some CPs,

 

2. The entire second advantages is specific to the Middle East - Obviously not the bottom part, but th I/Ls are. I know there is evidence out there that says the same thing but are specific to Japan. I also don't think that advantage is very strategic primarily because of all the alt causes.

 

Other comments:

Your China modernization advantage's internal link states that US presence in East Asia causes China to modernize. Your case doesn't solve that because we will still be in SK post plan, maybe chance the plan text to SK and Japan? (That would require re-writting your advantages to make the solvency advocates advocate removal from both countries, which I'm sure exist.)

 

Coral reefs is such a terrible advantage. You can find a better advantage to put in there. Maybe a NK advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The inherency - Now I know you won't lose on inherency, but with a good, updated, and strategic inherency card you can use it to gain leverage on disads and some CPs

How can inherency be leveraged against DAs and CPs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially note that I find your advantages confusing, at least in the sense that they don't seem to jive. From my impression, it seems like the thesis of the first advantage is that Heg is Good and to preserve it, we need to withdraw (At least with the Ferguson Card), yet it also seems to argue that offshore balancing is good (as the JSDF should take over). The second advantage continues to argue that offshore balancing is good to prevent Chinese Military Modernization. These two ideas don't seem to work together, at least in my mind. I think the best solution is to get rid of the stuff that says "Overstretch collapses Power"

 

Ignoring that, I find it problematic that your entire first advantage (Japan SDF Build-up) sets up to be a Off-Shore Balancing, yet it lacks any terminal impact to Heg. This is poor strategy for two reasons...

 

A. If the 1NC strategy was a heady mix of DAs/Offshore Balancing Bad, you/your partner are in a really bad spot for the 2AC. In this case, the neg probably gets 2 minutes of Heg Good in the 1NC, the 2AC probably gets about the same, but then the block has 5-8 mins to just out card you. You don't want to start a Heg Debate having to read uniqueness, ILs and Impacts in the 2AC. You need those cards in the 1AC to make the 2A's job easier.

 

B. You waste a ton of time with all the troops overstretched evidence in the 1AC. You could get rid of those and then strengthen your Internal Links of Japan will rearm (in terms of JSDF). You could also make preempts to the obvious Japan Rearm DA as and IL Turn on case.

 

I think that your best bet is to get rid of your 3rd advantage (which seems sketchy at best) and bulk up on the first advantage, adding some kind of scenario of offshore balancing with better IL on Japan Rearm in the place of troop overstretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your advantages really seem all over the place. You should put in some time to sort through the cards and get rid of ones you don't need and aren't as good as others and then make sure they're in a good order and flow together.

 

As others have said, you should update your inherency.

 

I don't think the internal links to the Taiwan impact are too great, but if you are going to keep a taiwan impact, you might as well read the 'Strait Times' card since it would actually work in that impact scenario.

 

And I may be wrong, but I think you've posted in other threads that you do UIL? If so, you really should move some of those cards around to make a solvency contention, otherwise judges are going to hate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first two cards contention 1 seem a tad arbitrary and could be removed. I would remove them for a couple of reasons:

 

1) They're kinda old. I would recommend at least a late 2010 card saying the same thing.

2) The second card is extremely irrelevant. Its from 2007 and is talking about Bush and Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Japan at all.

3) I think you would be better off with a card specific with Japan, or one that says the US military is making Japan really dependent and we need to downgrade.

 

In contention 2, I think the Mulvenon 6 card kinda non-uniques your entire advantage. Your like, "US presence in Japan makes china modernize" then you're like "China copy's the US when it modernizes." Like, basically its an alternate causality and could pretty much be taken out.

 

As South-x said, you're case IS a little heavy on terminal impacts. You could add another contention if just clean a little house. A contention 4 > three biodiversity impacts that say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the gaffney card proves you don't solve chinese modernization and therefore china war isn't solved for. if it's inevitable why do plan??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thank you to everyone who replied and gave me such good comments.

So for sure, I'm going to update my inherency. I'll definitely remodel the China one. As for the first advantage, I seem to not understand the difference between offshore balancing and removing troops?? I'm going to take everyone'

s comments and edit my case, then post it again in case anyone wants to check it out. Any ideas for a fourth contention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...