Jump to content
South-X

Comprehensive Harvard Coverage

Recommended Posts

Poltiics

They kick it

 

 

 

Russia

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Deterrence

 

Adds a card here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP

Cp

 

 

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

 

 

 

Russia

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

 

 

 

Deterrence

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

 

 

 

 

 

Hege

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

 

OTher countries want hegemony

 

 

Uniqueness

Committment is up now

 

US disengage from asia as result of plan

 

 

They increase prolif

 

 

 

Russia

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Korea

 

 

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.

 

Congatz

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.

 

Holmes

Gulliver

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.

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...