Jump to content

Comprehensive Harvard Coverage

Recommended Posts


They kick it






Globalized economy means we won't go to war


And new card research shows war won't escalate





Other countries won't use Russian energy--specifically South korea

Here is more evidence



Our evidence says South korea gets energy from ecentral asia



Relations will inevitably be good this is a drooped arg



WE would not use relations to solve warming










N. korea


no impact to nuclearization


Provacation are inevitable

here is more evidence



Leadership makes it provacation inevitable



Deterrence has checked all past provacations


Economic concerns check both actors



South korea will not backlash their cardis one line long





Sanctions will empirically fail N Korea won't yeild

Their authors exaggerate

N. Korea economy collapse


CCP would then collapse and that leads to war

And that turns North korea war



INcrease beligerance and nuclearization would occur


The cut off of trade cause masive N korea instability


Even if environement collapse is ienviablte it is long term








Adds a card here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





N Korea


Their evidence doesn't assume spilll over of prolif


They don't assumem public opinion of south kreoa

And moer evidence they will esscalte

More provacations are likely




Regime collapse

Their argumetn is about diplomacy

Sancation can't be refused

Chinese gov't won't collapse

They would stop proliferating---NO ANSWER


Our evidence is better on this question





resource wars would happen demand is growing too fast

Their ev is about food not oil


South korea will trust Russia post plan


Relations takes out hegemony





N. Korea proves deterrence is denied by recent aattacks

Any aggression should lead to response


Psychological studies says there will not be miscalculation


They are about broader asia


War collapse deterrence




Their link uniqueness is old



THey ignore South korea public


We are boogged down in IRaq and afghan now



Plan is critical to solve n korea mliitarization


Their evidenec is about east asia posture generally not south korea


US influence is ineffective in the region


More evidence


They have conceded that prolif spills over that means we control the impact



Troop removal in 2004 should have triggered



There was an akward few seconds of extra time after when there were no more arguments to make.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

THey have conceded too many link arguments


Every immpact invovles asian war

It is only a question of the strength of the link



A. Withdraw causes miscalculation

B. The alliance itself deters conflict

C. Asian hegemony is good--none of their impacts can escalate

D. Turns all the prolif arguments plan accelartes prolif process.





WE never said there would be no attacks just that they would not escalate


Our ev says N Korea diplomatic strategy is brinkmanship

We have 50 years of now ar evidenec

The alliance system also solves







Sand bagging is a voter--new cards were new args


OTher countries want hegemony




Committment is up now


US disengage from asia as result of plan



They increase prolif






no chance of resources wars no ecommic incentive to do it

There will not be Russia energy--they are too afraid of Russia



They will invest in central asian energy









There is no uniqueness for them South korea is aggressive but not too aggressive


Deterrence checks this conflict


Provocations are inevitable only deterrence can chceks




we are not going for collapse


N. Korea would refuse it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Hodgman just joked with Westminster "Do you know you had the same 2NR as I did against you in quarters? Deterrence and case."


For those not here the joke is that round was the deterrence K and case.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize my argument writing isn't perfect, I found out flowing straight down makes it slightly harder for me to flow than when I flow in an actual spreadsheet. So any slight argument I missed I apologize to the competitors.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three pieces of evidence South koera public will demand retailiaition

Public opino for retalisaation is highest in 50 years--this answers their empirical example



it is a quesiotn of if China is sufficent to constrain N. Korea


They say deterrence sovles lash out--this is not about provacations--only a risk of retaliation



China is key cover for N. korea provacations in teh status quo through diplomacy



They have conceded that N korea prolif spills over that makes war inevitable



Not going for Russia




Arms race are coming now--arms races are ineviatble was a specific warrant in the card


not a voting issue


MIles is just bolsetering a brink argumetn the new card is justified


There is no answer in 2NR that japanese prolif is ienvtable



Even if you throw out 1AR evidence--the thesis behind deterrence is wrong




All of their evidence is about deterring invasion but not provacations--this is a framing issue.

Their cards have to be POST PROVACTION TO MATTER



They say alliance solves multilat that is not explained



They dropped our China fill in--this is empirically proven strong China always prevents Asian war



There is only a risk of korean war


They concede we denuclearize north korea--only way Asian conflict can go nuclear is in the squo when n korea has nuclear weapons



China will reign them in--no answer or internal link ddefense--even if N korea has incentive to attack the WON"T HAVE THE ABILITY POST PLAN

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the top of the 2NC in the octas round vs. Carrollton, Damiyr and Miguel read a prepared statement. The debate continued without incident.


MCA ft. Beacon - that shit is just to damn cool. Also "you're breaking the rules", that's a link.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime during the debate, the Carrollton coaching staff levied a complaint against MCA for allowing Beacon to speak during part of their speech. Around five minutes after the round was over, it was announced that MCA was in violation of the two-person tournament rule and thus had to forfeit the round.


this is why we can't have nice things

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The winner of the Harvard tournament and this season's Baker award winner is Westminsiter on a 2-1 Eric forsland sat.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I rarely post but Congrats to Westminster. They are one of the best teams I have seen in a long time.




millard south too right? ;)

  • Downvote 1

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.

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.


  • Create New...