Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chaos

Japan

Recommended Posts

Fiat is immediate, yo

 

No. Fiat is just the believing that a plan will happen as it is specified. If the aff specifies immediate action, then it's immediate, if they specify otherwise, which is frowned upon theoretically in general, it happens however specified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Fiat is just the believing that a plan will happen as it is specified. If the aff specifies immediate action, then it's immediate, if they specify otherwise, which is frowned upon theoretically in general, it happens however specified.

 

And if they don't specify, they probably don't have to defend immediacy. "Should" only expresses desirability - "The USFG should get rid of COIN troops" just means that it's a good idea to end COIN (for the reasons stated in the advantages). The affirmative is just affirming that a normative statement is a good idea, not necessarily that this statement will happen - obviously it won't. This probably isn't a good interpretation of fiat in the context of disads, but in the context of counterplans like consult or delay that compete on immediacy and implementation it's more widely accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This probably isn't a good interpretation of fiat in the context of disads, but in the context of counterplans like consult or delay that compete on immediacy and implementation it's more widely accepted.

Side question, why is there this idea that things can be acceptable for CPs but not for DAs? It seems like an arbitrary double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Side question, why is there this idea that things can be acceptable for CPs but not for DAs? It seems like an arbitrary double standard.

 

Because disads are legitimate negative ground while consult/condition/delay/other counterplans that compete off of immediacy are questionably abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because disads are legitimate negative ground while consult/condition/delay/other counterplans that compete off of immediacy are questionably abusive.

Tautology 101.

 

For real, why can we use different standards for DAs than for CPs? If we pretend that the plan functions as X for the purposes of DAs, it's arbitrary to pretend that it functions as Z for the purposes of CPs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tautology 101.

 

For real, why can we use different standards for DAs than for CPs? If we pretend that the plan functions as X for the purposes of DAs, it's arbitrary to pretend that it functions as Z for the purposes of CPs.

 

Thank Ashtar somebody else thinks the same way...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're pulling out of more than just the afore mentioned 2 bases why not exclude those actively involved in disaster response? Or say they will pull out when their disaster response job is done (obviously that wording needs work).

 

The counter plan to pull everyone out is 100% permable.

 

The only argument you have to worry about is don't have a solvency advocate. Thats generally a stupid argument, because counter plans only have advocates about 5 to 10% of the time. It also destroys real world policy making (ie we shouldn't have to wait for someone to advocate this in the context of the disaster to know that plan is a good idea). Also, your author is still an author advocate--because you do less than the author says--not more. For instance if Nunn/Lugar advocate doing US/Russian coop over terrorism in 12 bases and you only advocate 6 of those bases. Nunn/Lugar is still an author advocate.

 

If they say you can't solve your advantage--I imagine the people LIKE this kind of help vs. typical militarism. I'm sure the evidence backs this up. Also you still solve 95% of the advantage. I would look at it as a numerical issue of how many troops you pull out vs. how many were there to begin with to make a mathmatical estimation.

 

Also I imagine a more flexible force structure (off shore balancing) could solve future problems--at least mitigate them.

 

Also, is there any trad eoff argument (ie us being there crowds out UN or some other actor or multilateral solutions)? Unfortunately, the evidence is probably better the other way (ie us key to faciliate multilateral & international coop).

 

The best way the neg can better access this impact is to make it a systemic issue. Future, earthquakes, tsunamis, and meltdowns inevitable over the next 30 years. We need an active force of whats there and support staff to effectively respond. Pullout destroys the current work & makes the US look like an idiot (soft power, etc.) & failure to respond quickly in the future = 100,000 deaths.

 

I do worry that an aff like this might have problems vs. Counterplan + politics, but the neg. has the win/loss advantage on this topic from what I hear.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tautology 101.

 

For real, why can we use different standards for DAs than for CPs? If we pretend that the plan functions as X for the purposes of DAs, it's arbitrary to pretend that it functions as Z for the purposes of CPs.

 

It's not all counterplans, just the ones that really don't let you defend your aff. Maybe sometimes the consult/condition cp has literature behind it in the context of the aff (denuke North Korea is an example), but if there is no literature about consulting or whatever there's no way to weigh the aff against the counterplan. Thus, negatives probably shouldn't have the right to those kinds of counterplans. Also, "should" just means that the plan should happen; nothing in the resolution demands immediacy. Are you really gonna defend the legitimacy of the delay counterplan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really gonna defend the legitimacy of the delay counterplan?

 

There are solid reasons why a delay debate is better than a K debate, which is basically a utopian counterplan in drag.

 

The crux of the problem with an aff not defending immediate action:

1) When are you going to defend the inaction of the plan (300 years in the future and 300 in the past)? At every time in history? or just a limited part of history? Defending the general idea of the plan is forcing a bigger, not a smaller obligation on the affirmative. The neg is now in a position that it can a) DA any of it B) PIC out of any of it.

2) And I think we can agree that time is key to policy making. And delay is certainly a test of opportunity costs--especially in the context of this resolution which has affs making so many distinctions around this issue.

3) Also its the best check again affs that are only negligably inherent (aka Afghanistan & Iraq)--the neg is forced to create uniqueness for their DA--and delays a predictable & educational way to do so.

 

Total side issue:

This may seem paradoxical, but I think an ideological defense of the aff might somehow get around this. In the sense that the DA only deals with a time slice vs. the aff is semi-universal (although certainly this opens a whole other bag of worms). In other words an ideological defense is the only defense which really defends the general idea of the plan & not just a moment in time (or a period of time, given a set of geopolitical conditions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will maybe sound mean but it is better that the earthquaqe happened to a productive nation like the JApanese than to some place like Haiti or some other Third world nation. Japan is at least going to recover quickly.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...