Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kyle_Y_916

Round 362: [MILITARY] Kyle_Y_916 (aff) vs. thefrozenone (neg)

Recommended Posts

I'll debate you, I can get a 1nc up tonight.

So will I... lawl...

C-x

1. What's the shape of our strategy in Afghanistan post-plan?

 

2. Who runs the drones removed under the plan?

 

3. Which drones does the plan remove? *What* does the plan claim to effectually reduce?

 

4. Doesn't your Fox evidence hold true for any nuclear war?

 

5. What month is your daily mail card from? (The first one under the afghanistan advantage)

 

6. Where do drones operate?

 

7. What is Pakistan's role in stabilizing Afghanistan?

 

8. Why do Tier 2 drones uniquely cause resentment?

 

As I said, 1nc up tonight

 

edit: judges?

 

double edit: this is round 363

Edited by thefrozenone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So will I... lawl...

C-x

1. What's the shape of our strategy in Afghanistan post-plan?

I'll defend one without the use of Tier II Drones. So no targetted killing through use of drones. I can clarify further.

 

2. Who runs the drones removed under the plan?

CIA owns and operates them jointly with the military using soldiers to operate a number of them.

 

3. Which drones does the plan remove? *What* does the plan claim to effectually reduce?

Plan is an immidiate withdrawal of Tier II Classified [M.A.L.E] Drones.

 

4. Doesn't your Fox evidence hold true for any nuclear war?

In the lower half of the evidence it speaks of regional conflict being the primary cause.

 

5. What month is your daily mail card from? (The first one under the afghanistan advantage)

I believe January.

 

6. Where do drones operate?

They operate throughout the middle east. The US drones in question work primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan.

 

7. What is Pakistan's role in stabilizing Afghanistan?

I'll defend a spillover effect from destabilizing factors common in both regions.

 

8. Why do Tier 2 drones uniquely cause resentment?

They're the only class of drones with weapons on them.

 

As I said, 1nc up tonight

 

edit: judges?

 

double edit: this is round 363

.

Edited by Kyle_Y_916

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll judge.

Paradigm floating around somewhere, I can post it if you need me too.

 

I'm sure I won't have a problem with your paradigm, but could you post it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What's the shape of our strategy in Afghanistan post-plan?

I'll defend one without the use of Tier II Drones. So no targetted killing through use of drones. I can clarify further.

 

What do you do to the COIN strategy in place in Afghanistan?

 

4. Doesn't your Fox evidence hold true for any nuclear war?

In the lower half of the evidence it speaks of regional conflict being the primary cause.

 

Sorry, lemme rephrase - wouldn't this be true of any nuclear war? Why is war between India and Pakistan worse? They don't even have that many nukes

 

5. What month is your daily mail card from? (The first one under the afghanistan advantage)

I believe January.

 

Does it assume drone operations post surge?

 

8. Why do Tier 2 drones uniquely cause resentment?

They'll the only class of drones with weapons on them.

 

So Afghanis are fine by drones that keep a constant surveillance on them?

 

1nc will be up after this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What's the shape of our strategy in Afghanistan post-plan?

I'll defend one without the use of Tier II Drones. So no targetted killing through use of drones. I can clarify further.

 

What do you do to the COIN strategy in place in Afghanistan?

Well, with the drones missions being tied in part of COIN strategies, the plan affects that part of it. In other words, personnel as in troops are left in tact and the targetted killing through drones is ended.

 

4. Doesn't your Fox evidence hold true for any nuclear war?

In the lower half of the evidence it speaks of regional conflict being the primary cause.

 

Sorry, lemme rephrase - wouldn't this be true of any nuclear war? Why is war between India and Pakistan worse? They don't even have that many nukes

To a certain extent this can be true, but the evidence specifies regional conflicts being worse. Sure they don't have many nukes, but the combined launch in such a small area equal an event which accesses the Fox evidence.

 

5. What month is your daily mail card from? (The first one under the afghanistan advantage)

I believe January.

 

Does it assume drone operations post surge?

I'll defend the drones belonging to the US post plan that are left.

 

8. Why do Tier 2 drones uniquely cause resentment?

They'll the only class of drones with weapons on them.

 

So Afghanis are fine by drones that keep a constant surveillance on them?

There hasn't been much of an uproar from surveilence from drones. I mean it's the casualties that are getting them rallied up.

1nc will be up after this.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 off, pakistan, central asia

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?shqw92et0z1s2wt

 

If this was first round next friday, this debate=<3 for me.

 

1. Uhm.. so what exactly is the violation?

 

2. What specific in round abuse is there?

 

3. Status of both counter plans?

 

4. Can you give specific examples in the past two years where the JCS was consulted for military withdrawals?

 

5. What are CMR's looking like in the status quo.

 

6. Who specifically is the JCS and how are they referenced in your Hooker 4 ptx shielding ev?

 

7. How are bipartisanship and political capital connected?

 

8. So the Hoover evidence just says SKFTA is ready for action, how at all does this indicate it's at the top of the docket.

 

9. What's the exact date of the Broder evidence under ptx?

 

10. How many democrats are on board with SKFTA?

 

11. How does your Cooper 7 link SKFTA and NK Prolif?

 

12. Net benefit of the second counterplan?

 

13. Does the second counterplan guarantee no civilian casualties?

 

14. Explain the process of the second counterplan.

 

15. Is the second d.a a net benefit of either counterplan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was first round next friday, this debate=<3 for me.

 

Haha, I haven't debated drones on the neg yet this year...I want to crank out some crazy neg stuff too..no K though... :)

 

1. Uhm.. so what exactly is the violation?

You don't mandate a reduction in ground troops

2. What specific in round abuse is there?

I mean, a lot of the DAs based on deterrence and withdrawal of large troop reductions don't apply. I can laundry list disads and kritiks that don't function under drones affs, I'll save that until I know if T is in the block

3. Status of both counter plans?

Conditional

4. Can you give specific examples in the past two years where the JCS was consulted for military withdrawals?

Changes to the COIN strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq (i.e. surges and reductions). Small wartime operations don't require consultation like military withdrawals, though - that's what our links are specific to.

5. What are CMR's looking like in the status quo.

Obama's made a commitment to not make Gates and Petraeus look like tools, and Petraeus hasn't completely screwed Obama either

6. Who specifically is the JCS and how are they referenced in your Hooker 4 ptx shielding ev?

The joint chiefs of staff - the Hooker ev talks about (a lack of) consultation with the military

7. How are bipartisanship and political capital connected?

Polcap is Obama's ability to get Republicans on board for bills he wants to get through

8. So the Hoover evidence just says SKFTA is ready for action, how at all does this indicate it's at the top of the docket

It's going to be debated these next few weeks

9. What's the exact date of the Broder evidence under ptx?

august 1st of last year

10. How many democrats are on board with SKFTA?

I'll be honest, I don't know the exact number, but a large majority, almost 50. The internal link is based on republican acceptance and our link ev indicates that everyone likes drones

11. How does your Cooper 7 link SKFTA and NK Prolif?

Absent SKFTA there's no real policy coherence towards tackling NK prolif

12. Net benefit of the second counterplan?

The budget DA

13. Does the second counterplan guarantee no civilian casualties?

There's no guarantee, but there's a huge factor in deterring reckless attacks. Also, since it focuses in the FATA regions, we're targeting where Al-qda is more likely to hide

14. Explain the process of the second counterplan.

We basically reform the way our drones operate, and shift their main areas of operation, as well as deterring reckless civilian casualties

15. Is the second d.a a net benefit of either counterplan?

the second DA is a net ben to the reform cp because we don't actually reduce drones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l Judge if its alright. Paradigm:

 

T-I'm cool with it. I tend to lean away from fairness standards and look more to education and reasonability. I tend to vote for the aff more times than not. but if the neg argues it effectively throughout the round i will vote on it.

 

Theory-LOVE IT. I absolutely love watching a good theory debate. Run theory on anything you want. Once again i like watching the education standards be argued effectively.

 

Disads-I really need to see a clear and precise link story. Try to avoid being vague. Show me why the impacts are going to outweigh the case with a good impact calc

 

Counterplans-Show me why it competes and solves just as good or better(agent). I find myself swaying to the aff on perms. It is the negs job to go in depth as to why the perm cannot work. I like good impact to impact debates on counter plans, impact turns will rank high on the flow.

 

Kritiks-Ks-Love them. Getting more familiar with the lit everyday and i would love to learn some more. Link story needs to be there. It needs to be clear and concise. Its the negs job to prove the link not the affs job. Impact wise, i need to see a reason why the k outweighs all the impacts of the aff, whether thats through a root cause or some sneaky v2l outweighs argument is fine with me. I need to see the aff working hard to show why the perm works, not just the neg working hard to show why it doesn't work. I get sick of hearing perms that are thrown for no strategic purpose except to time skew on a kritik.

 

Framework- Enjoy a good framework debate. Like to look at competing interps. Try not to make the flow messy with this one.

 

Other questions just ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this was first round next friday, this debate=<3 for me.

 

Haha, I haven't debated drones on the neg yet this year...I want to crank out some crazy neg stuff too..no K though... :)

Aww... maybe at state

 

1. Uhm.. so what exactly is the violation?

You don't mandate a reduction in ground troops

Ok, so if that's the violation, how is this consistent with the interp.

 

2. What specific in round abuse is there?

I mean, a lot of the DAs based on deterrence and withdrawal of large troop reductions don't apply. I can laundry list disads and kritiks that don't function under drones affs, I'll save that until I know if T is in the block

Sure, this sounds like a lot of potential abuse, but where's the actual in round abuse.

 

4. Can you give specific examples in the past two years where the JCS was consulted for military withdrawals?

Changes to the COIN strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq (i.e. surges and reductions). Small wartime operations don't require consultation like military withdrawals, though - that's what our links are specific to.

Sure, can you cite any warrants out of the 1NC, or give specific dates to such?

 

5. What are CMR's looking like in the status quo.

Obama's made a commitment to not make Gates and Petraeus look like tools, and Petraeus hasn't completely screwed Obama either

I'll rephrase, are we on the brink with CMR's now?

 

6. Who specifically is the JCS and how are they referenced in your Hooker 4 ptx shielding ev?

The joint chiefs of staff - the Hooker ev talks about (a lack of) consultation with the military

Lolz. Ok cool, but who composes the JCS and where specifically are they cited in the Hooker ev?

 

7. How are bipartisanship and political capital connected?

Polcap is Obama's ability to get Republicans on board for bills he wants to get through

Let's put it this way, how do you're two pieces of evidence warrant this?

 

8. So the Hoover evidence just says SKFTA is ready for action, how at all does this indicate it's at the top of the docket

It's going to be debated these next few weeks

Ok I get that, but where does it say it's at the top of the docket?

 

11. How does your Cooper 7 link SKFTA and NK Prolif?

Absent SKFTA there's no real policy coherence towards tackling NK prolif

Ok, so the ev talks about bilateralism between us and soko, where does is indicate SKFTA solving NK prolif?

 

 

13. Does the second counterplan guarantee no civilian casualties?

There's no guarantee, but there's a huge factor in deterring reckless attacks. Also, since it focuses in the FATA regions, we're targeting where Al-qda is more likely to hide

So the counter plan only authorizes drone warfare in the FATA?

 

13b. Do you specify where the FATA is?

 

 

16. Do you defend mutual exclusive from the d.a's with both cp's?

 

I should only need one more wave of cx and 2AC should be up tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
l Judge if its alright. Paradigm:

 

T-I'm cool with it. I tend to lean away from fairness standards and look more to education and reasonability. I tend to vote for the aff more times than not. but if the neg argues it effectively throughout the round i will vote on it.

 

Theory-LOVE IT. I absolutely love watching a good theory debate. Run theory on anything you want. Once again i like watching the education standards be argued effectively.

 

Disads-I really need to see a clear and precise link story. Try to avoid being vague. Show me why the impacts are going to outweigh the case with a good impact calc

 

Counterplans-Show me why it competes and solves just as good or better(agent). I find myself swaying to the aff on perms. It is the negs job to go in depth as to why the perm cannot work. I like good impact to impact debates on counter plans, impact turns will rank high on the flow.

 

Kritiks-Ks-Love them. Getting more familiar with the lit everyday and i would love to learn some more. Link story needs to be there. It needs to be clear and concise. Its the negs job to prove the link not the affs job. Impact wise, i need to see a reason why the k outweighs all the impacts of the aff, whether thats through a root cause or some sneaky v2l outweighs argument is fine with me. I need to see the aff working hard to show why the perm works, not just the neg working hard to show why it doesn't work. I get sick of hearing perms that are thrown for no strategic purpose except to time skew on a kritik.

 

Framework- Enjoy a good framework debate. Like to look at competing interps. Try not to make the flow messy with this one.

 

Other questions just ask.

 

I'm good with you and banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so if that's the violation, how is this consistent with the interp.

Our interp is that presence is ground forces, the violation is that the aff doesn't mandate a reduction in ground forces

 

Sure, this sounds like a lot of potential abuse, but where's the actual in round abuse.

I mean, this is only the 1nc. I can't claim that you have abused me if the round hasn't started yet

 

Sure, can you cite any warrants out of the 1NC, or give specific dates to such?

The military should be the people making the decisions. Your withdrawal goes against the grain of what the military wants, and unless we appease them through consultation, we risk tipping up the CMR balance - our Kohn ev says we have to maintain a working, balanced relationship between civilian and military leaders.

 

I'll rephrase, are we on the brink with CMR's now?

Yes, our policies in Afghanistan risk huge backlash with Gates and Petraeus, what we do this summer really determines how the war swings

 

Lolz. Ok cool, but who composes the JCS and where specifically are they cited in the Hooker ev?

The Joint Chiefs of staff are the heads of each branch of the military. Our Hooker ev says when there's a perception of civilian leaders steamrolling the military, you get Republican backlash.

 

Let's put it this way, how do you're two pieces of evidence warrant this?

Shane says everyone loves drones. Broder says you need political consensus to pass SKFTA. Removal of drones risks Obama losing his political base.

 

Ok I get that, but where does it say it's at the top of the docket?

If SKFTA is going to be debated right now, it's the top of the docket.

 

Ok, so the ev talks about bilateralism between us and soko, where does is indicate SKFTA solving NK prolif?

It says that SKFTA is key to relations, which solves NK prolif.

 

So the counter plan only authorizes drone warfare in the FATA?

Yeah, it also enacts a zero-casualty policy

 

Federally administrated tribal areas, Pakistan has their own designation for where exactly there are, here's a picture

 

edit: I'm okay with both judges

Edited by thefrozenone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure, can you cite any warrants out of the 1NC, or give specific dates to such?

The military should be the people making the decisions. Your withdrawal goes against the grain of what the military wants, and unless we appease them through consultation, we risk tipping up the CMR balance - our Kohn ev says we have to maintain a working, balanced relationship between civilian and military leaders.

So were the previous withdrawals over the years processed through the JCS?

 

Lolz. Ok cool, but who composes the JCS and where specifically are they cited in the Hooker ev?

The Joint Chiefs of staff are the heads of each branch of the military. Our Hooker ev says when there's a perception of civilian leaders steamrolling the military, you get Republican backlash.

So who actually does the plan at that point?

 

Federally administrated tribal areas, Pakistan has their own designation for where exactly there are, here's a picture

lol, I like pictures :}

edit: I'm okay with both judges

like I said, 2AC up tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yeah, we had the president and the Joint Chiefs working together in Iraq.

 

2. Post-consultation, the DOD actually sends the orders to each individual military general to end drone strikes and flying drones out of Afghanistan

 

alright, sounds good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick heads up, 2AC will be up within the next few day due to schedule conflicts, i.e. school and State prep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick heads up, 2AC will be up within the next few day due to schedule conflicts, i.e. school and State prep.

 

Bump. What's the status on the 2AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh geez I forgot. sorry. I haven't had time to work on it, and I doubt I will have time to finish the debate. If I can post within the next few days, though past time, I'll finish this out.

Edited by Kyle_Y_916

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure I won't have a problem with your paradigm, but could you post it?

My paradigm:

I think it is noneducational and stupid to have "defaults" on arguments like T, theory, framework, etc. That being said I have no "defaults" outside of presumption, so if no one gives me a way to view a certain argument (like competing interps, policy making framework, etc.), I most likely will vote on presumption depending on the argument (The one exception to my no default rule is that I do believe presumption switches aff when the neg reads a CP or K alt). Also I'm not the judge to go 7+ off, I find it even more noneducational than most other things and will be sympathetic to the affirmative.

 

T and theory - I find myself having a lower threshold than most judges on voting T. The way to convince is me is showing that there was abuse (potential or in-round which ever you win) and win the argument. As stated above I don't "default" to any specific thing on topicality aside from topicality precedes arguments (Although I can be easily convinced otherwise). Also I'll vote on spec arguments, but when it comes to most spec argument I'm easily persuaded by "This is stupid" or "Clearly no abuse they are just throwing a bunch of shit at the wall".

 

Framework - I LOVE a good framework debate, I'm not afraid to exclude the 1AC or exclude the K. If the aff wins that policy making is best and I shouldn't evaluate kritiks, then i won't. If the neg wins that I should only look at in round solvency or the k then I won't look at the aff.

 

Kritiks - I love a good k debate, or a good policy vs k debate. I'm very well read on K lit, if I haven't read the book, i have probably seen it ran or sat in on a lecture on it. This can help or hurt you. I still require a specific link, impact, and alt story to coincide with the affirmative whether it is with specific evidence or contextualized with generics. I think framework is a must with kritiks (Mostly because a good FW combined with a kritik can get you so many steps ahead of the affirmative).

 

DAs and CPs - I love a good CP+DA strat, the more specific the better. I'm a bit more lenient on if it's just a generic CP with a generic net benefit as long as you contextualize the story of the DA and the CP. Specific CP solvency does go a long way.

 

Misc - I'm a sucker for good impact calc.

Policy vs Kritik (whether is k affs vs policy neg or policy aff vs k neg) is one of my favorite debates to judge and watch.

Util vs denotology debates are another favorite of mine.

Any questions, just ask.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...