Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kyle_Y_916

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

Recommended Posts

How does our Gavin evidence flow neg?

 

How does our Silverman evidence flow neg?

 

Your framework on the budget DA - what is the impact? What happens to it if I kick the DA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha, this is exactly what I expected.

 

How does our Gavin evidence flow neg?

sorry scratch that. I won't count it because I cut a specific part out. risk and junk :P

 

How does our Silverman evidence flow neg?

I assume you mean AFF. I quoted the line of the evidence that speaks of US involvement and influence. Sure it speaks of other safeguards in the area, but its in the opposite of how withdrawal works. It indicts the assumptions based on withdrawal first, then the increase of terror and threats and such. We isolate the second half is what's actually necessary. I can clarify further.

 

Your framework on the budget DA - what is the impact? What happens to it if I kick the DA?

The overarching framework of the debate encompasses the budget DA and PTX on the endorsement of what the negative can advocate. We isolated the political status quo, not just status quo pre-plan, that means you'll have to defend the future instances of the DA being triggered.

 

You can kick the DA and nothing will happen theoretically, I can clarify further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha, this is exactly what I expected.

 

There goes predictability :)

How does our Silverman evidence flow neg?

I assume you mean AFF. I quoted the line of the evidence that speaks of US involvement and influence. Sure it speaks of other safeguards in the area, but its in the opposite of how withdrawal works. It indicts the assumptions based on withdrawal first, then the increase of terror and threats and such. We isolate the second half is what's actually necessary. I can clarify further.

 

The rest of the card explains how the doom scenarios about losing our influence are silly. How does this flow aff?

 

Your framework on the budget DA - what is the impact? What happens to it if I kick the DA?

The overarching framework of the debate encompasses the budget DA and PTX on the endorsement of what the negative can advocate. We isolated the political status quo, not just status quo pre-plan, that means you'll have to defend the future instances of the DA being triggered.

 

So are you saying your plan is inevitable? Can I kick the DA with any implications on the other DA or case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ha, this is exactly what I expected.

 

There goes predictability :)

haha yeah

 

How does our Silverman evidence flow neg?

I assume you mean AFF. I quoted the line of the evidence that speaks of US involvement and influence. Sure it speaks of other safeguards in the area, but its in the opposite of how withdrawal works. It indicts the assumptions based on withdrawal first, then the increase of terror and threats and such. We isolate the second half is what's actually necessary. I can clarify further.

 

The rest of the card explains how the doom scenarios about losing our influence are silly. How does this flow aff?

 

sure, we don't isolate the same mindset towards withdrawal minimizing the doom saying stereotype

 

 

Your framework on the budget DA - what is the impact? What happens to it if I kick the DA?

The overarching framework of the debate encompasses the budget DA and PTX on the endorsement of what the negative can advocate. We isolated the political status quo, not just status quo pre-plan, that means you'll have to defend the future instances of the DA being triggered.

 

So are you saying your plan is inevitable? Can I kick the DA with any implications on the other DA or case?

 

no, the case is isolated in way that the scenarios are specific and the necessary action to solve for the harms would be to do the plan. There's no status quo actions in congress or planned to reduce drones in the near future. The actual harms we isolate are mindful of time like civilian casualties or furthering the drone war. If the case were something less strict and time would solve it because it's already planned and proposed, then yes, plan would be inevitable, but as stated it's not that scenario with the aff plan.

 

You can kick the d.a for the purpose of not losing the flow, but we say you'll have to realistically defend the status quo, like in terms of the politics d.a. Other politics could derail it. Same with budget DA, spending trades off all the time and uniqueness hinders the DA links.

 

sorry if it's kind of fuzzy, I'm multitasking with homework and such

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, the case is isolated in way that the scenarios are specific and the necessary action to solve for the harms would be to do the plan. There's no status quo actions in congress or planned to reduce drones in the near future. The actual harms we isolate are mindful of time like civilian casualties or furthering the drone war. If the case were something less strict and time would solve it because it's already planned and proposed, then yes, plan would be inevitable, but as stated it's not that scenario with the aff plan.

 

You can kick the d.a for the purpose of not losing the flow, but we say you'll have to realistically defend the status quo, like in terms of the politics d.a. Other politics could derail it. Same with budget DA, spending trades off all the time and uniqueness hinders the DA links.

 

sorry if it's kind of fuzzy, I'm multitasking with homework and such

 

So basically the disad links to the withdrawal that's going to happen in July?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically the disad links to the withdrawal that's going to happen in July?

 

The framework interprets, on this particular DA, you have to defend that and other withdrawals that are planned in the relative timeframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I don't think so... :( I can certainly ask my coach, though

 

Well if you are, I'm in town and I'm trying to set up a policy debate round with someone because I would hate to do an IE all day and the people from our school won't debate me seriously. So let me know.

 

CX:

 

1) Do the theoretical issues of the perms hold weight on the JCS counterplan if it's been kicked?

 

2) When did I claim a voting issue on framework?

 

3) If the advantage isn't talked about (Afghanistan) does it matter?

 

4) Where do the Bandow and the Innocent evidence speak specifically of a collapse of Pakistan for the loose nukes scenario.

 

5) Did the Pakistan flood lead to a collapse of the government and end of US support/credibility?

 

6) Ok so does the Silvernman evidence take the instability scenario and talk in context of a negative view towards withdrawal? Does it it only take the stance that withdrawal is bad and lead to insecurities?

 

7) Ok so the new Fair evidence, does it predicate the damage done by drones that caused a merge between the Pakistan army and the Taliban? Same with the Taj and the following Fair.

 

8) Ok so more troops go in. Do you ever claim an Impact directly in your speech?

 

9) So what terror and insurgency like in the mountains?

 

10) Explain the US Imperialism argument from Taj.

 

11) What's the uniqueness evidence from the 1NC on the CMR

 

12) Specifically warrant where the Barton evidence links CMR to Pak collapse.

 

13) So back in 03 it was claimed CMR solves terror. Why hasn't this eliminated terrorism?

 

14) So any slip right? This is the Ackerman evidence.

 

15) Where does the Cooper evidence prove China hege will increase?

 

16) Who's the biggest influence in East Asia right now?

 

17) Are troops in Soko in the stat quo?

 

 

Haha, I thought we're stuck with uniqueness from prior to the 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you are, I'm in town and I'm trying to set up a policy debate round with someone because I would hate to do an IE all day and the people from our school won't debate me seriously. So let me know.

Alright

CX:

 

1) Do the theoretical issues of the perms hold weight on the JCS counterplan if it's been kicked?

It's a reason to reject the arg so that you can't go for it, so I guess not

2) When did I claim a voting issue on framework?

I'm just trying to cover my bases

3) If the advantage isn't talked about (Afghanistan) does it matter?

You didn't explicitly kick it, and I kind of got confused since you answered the args that I put on both advantages. It's not a "you dropped it" thing, it's more of a "I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you and the judge" thing

4) Where do the Bandow and the Innocent evidence speak specifically of a collapse of Pakistan for the loose nukes scenario.

Innocent: the danger of militants seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons

remains highly unlikely...the least likely outcome is a takeover by widely unpopular Pakistani militants.

 

Bandow: The Pakistan military is the nation's strongest institution

 

5) Did the Pakistan flood lead to a collapse of the government and end of US support/credibility?

No, the flood proves that things can't escalate

6) Ok so does the Silvernman evidence take the instability scenario and talk in context of a negative view towards withdrawal? Does it it only take the stance that withdrawal is bad and lead to insecurities?

No, it says 1st. here is what people think is going to happen to Afghanistan 2nd. this is why these claims are silly.

7) Ok so the new Fair evidence, does it predicate the damage done by drones that caused a merge between the Pakistan army and the Taliban? Same with the Taj and the following Fair.

No, it says drones prevent ground troops which are comparatively worse

8) Ok so more troops go in. Do you ever claim an Impact directly in your speech?

Yeah, they fire indiscriminately and brutally displace civilians. This is probably a bad thing even if it doesn't end in global nuclear war because it turns case

9) So what terror and insurgency like in the mountains?

That's where insurgents are hiding

10) Explain the US Imperialism argument from Taj.

We should have a credible commitment to fight terrorism because that's what a lot of Pakistanis want. Also, we can't let people who have claimed innocent lives get away with it. There is no boundary between a "lawful" and and "unlawful" combatant. It's a response to your biopolitics add-on.

11) What's the uniqueness evidence from the 1NC on the CMR

Nation 2-11, Obama is trying to please republicans by looking like a tough guy and spending a shit ton on defense

12) Specifically warrant where the Barton evidence links CMR to Pak collapse.

The last few lines of the card say that unless the military and civilians are working together, aid won't go through. Also we have another card on that as well as a modeling internal link

13) So back in 03 it was claimed CMR solves terror. Why hasn't this eliminated terrorism?

Because terrorists hate the US and the only thing we can do is to prevent them from being able to group in large numbers at once to plan a really, really, really big attack

14) So any slip right? This is the Ackerman evidence.

It's an impact magnifier, yes

15) Where does the Cooper evidence prove China hege will increase?

It says absent SKFTA, China will have huge access to trade deals in East Asia that the US doesn't have. SKFTA is a foot in the door for economic policies in East Asia

16) Who's the biggest influence in East Asia right now?

I would say the US and China are competing for influence and neither of them are really making any decisive gains

17) Are troops in Soko in the stat quo?

Sure

 

Haha, I thought we're stuck with uniqueness from prior to the 1AC

I see, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you are, I'm in town and I'm trying to set up a policy debate round with someone because I would hate to do an IE all day and the people from our school won't debate me seriously. So let me know.

Alright

CX:

 

 

4) Where do the Bandow and the Innocent evidence speak specifically of a collapse of Pakistan for the loose nukes scenario.

Innocent: the danger of militants seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons

remains highly unlikely...the least likely outcome is a takeover by widely unpopular Pakistani militants.

 

Bandow: The Pakistan military is the nation's strongest institution

 

sure, but do they predicate a collapse?

 

 

7) Ok so the new Fair evidence, does it predicate the damage done by drones that caused a merge between the Pakistan army and the Taliban? Same with the Taj and the following Fair.

No, it says drones prevent ground troops which are comparatively worse

 

how so?

 

8) Ok so more troops go in. Do you ever claim an Impact directly in your speech?

Yeah, they fire indiscriminately and brutally displace civilians. This is probably a bad thing even if it doesn't end in global nuclear war because it turns case

 

Warrant in the 1NC or 2NC?

 

11) What's the uniqueness evidence from the 1NC on the CMR

Nation 2-11, Obama is trying to please republicans by looking like a tough guy and spending a shit ton on defense

 

how does this necessarily play as a uniqueness argument for CMR

 

12) Specifically warrant where the Barton evidence links CMR to Pak collapse.

The last few lines of the card say that unless the military and civilians are working together, aid won't go through. Also we have another card on that as well as a modeling internal link

 

sure, stability, but where does it predicate a full collapse?

 

how does the silverman evidence not non unique this argument?

 

13) So back in 03 it was claimed CMR solves terror. Why hasn't this eliminated terrorism?

Because terrorists hate the US and the only thing we can do is to prevent them from being able to group in large numbers at once to plan a really, really, really big attack

 

I think you forgot a really

 

15) Where does the Cooper evidence prove China hege will increase?

It says absent SKFTA, China will have huge access to trade deals in East Asia that the US doesn't have. SKFTA is a foot in the door for economic policies in East Asia

 

sure, how does the evidence equate to heg?

 

16) Who's the biggest influence in East Asia right now?

I would say the US and China are competing for influence and neither of them are really making any decisive gains

 

so then how does your internal link to nw have uniqueness if china has hege based on you above argument?

 

 

Haha, I thought we're stuck with uniqueness from prior to the 1AC

I see, lol

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) Where do the Bandow and the Innocent evidence speak specifically of a collapse of Pakistan for the loose nukes scenario.

Innocent: the danger of militants seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons

remains highly unlikely...the least likely outcome is a takeover by widely unpopular Pakistani militants.

 

Bandow: The Pakistan military is the nation's strongest institution

 

sure, but do they predicate a collapse?

If your scenario for collapse is a takeover by Pakistani militants, then yes

 

7) Ok so the new Fair evidence, does it predicate the damage done by drones that caused a merge between the Pakistan army and the Taliban? Same with the Taj and the following Fair.

No, it says drones prevent ground troops which are comparatively worse

 

how so?

 

If the drones weren't there, Pakistan would send it's ground troops in.

8) Ok so more troops go in. Do you ever claim an Impact directly in your speech?

Yeah, they fire indiscriminately and brutally displace civilians. This is probably a bad thing even if it doesn't end in global nuclear war because it turns case

 

Warrant in the 1NC or 2NC?

Ctrl + F "The Pakistani Army is much worse" 2nc

11) What's the uniqueness evidence from the 1NC on the CMR

Nation 2-11, Obama is trying to please republicans by looking like a tough guy and spending a shit ton on defense

 

how does this necessarily play as a uniqueness argument for CMR

CMR is the relationship between Obama/Congress and the military

12) Specifically warrant where the Barton evidence links CMR to Pak collapse.

The last few lines of the card say that unless the military and civilians are working together, aid won't go through. Also we have another card on that as well as a modeling internal link

 

sure, stability, but where does it predicate a full collapse?

Aid is key, we have a card after that

how does the silverman evidence not non unique this argument?

If you want to concede your impact, we'll conceded the disad doesn't turn case

13) So back in 03 it was claimed CMR solves terror. Why hasn't this eliminated terrorism?

Because terrorists hate the US and the only thing we can do is to prevent them from being able to group in large numbers at once to plan a really, really, really big attack

I think you forgot a really

Oh, you :)

15) Where does the Cooper evidence prove China hege will increase?

It says absent SKFTA, China will have huge access to trade deals in East Asia that the US doesn't have. SKFTA is a foot in the door for economic policies in East Asia

 

sure, how does the evidence equate to heg?

It says a counter to Chinese economic heg

16) Who's the biggest influence in East Asia right now?

I would say the US and China are competing for influence and neither of them are really making any decisive gains

 

so then how does your internal link to nw have uniqueness if china has hege based on you above argument?

You said influence, so I wasn't sure if you meant economic or military, so no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15) Where does the Cooper evidence prove China hege will increase?

It says absent SKFTA, China will have huge access to trade deals in East Asia that the US doesn't have. SKFTA is a foot in the door for economic policies in East Asia

 

sure, how does the evidence equate to heg?

It says a counter to Chinese economic heg

 

does the i/l to the impact suggest this form of hege?

 

.

 

1AR will probably take a while as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heg isn't just military dominance, it's control, it's influence. Cooper and Maynin talk about how China has virtually brought these countries under their sphere of influence.

 

Walton says that Chinese influence fuels belligerence and when they're in a better position economically to the US, they feel more confident militarily, which is why they wouldn't feel bad about confronting us, leading to the Strait Times impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1AR will probably take a while as well.

 

Bump. Are you still planning to post the next speech?

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...