Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CRusso

Round: 379: [MILITARY] TheSpecifier (aff) vs. CRusso (neg)

Recommended Posts

1. What is our extended nuclear deterrent presence?

 

2. Will there be troops in Japan post plan?

 

3. Why is now the key time for any of this? Most of your evidence if from the early 2000s.

 

4. Your Eberstdat evidence says U.S. protection of SOKO leads to all this bad shit - how does the plan solve when we still have troops in SOKO post plan?

 

5. What is the alliance like between SOKO and Japan right now?

 

6. If American presence is the root cause of Chinese aggression, why are we only seeing Chinese aggression now when we've had bases for 50 years?

 

7. Your Krauthammer evidence is indicative of the west containing China. Doesn't this make your impacts inevitable post plan?

 

8. Your Kupchan evidence that American presence prevents Asian stability if from 98. Why haven't we seen your imapcts?

 

9.The U.S. has many bilateral alliances with Asian countries, such as Japan and South korea - if those nations become engaged in combat, does the U.S. just chill there and watch?

 

10. Will there be no conflict in Asia post plan?

 

11. When are we going to see these countries declare war your Layne in 96 evidence is indicative of?

 

12. What are your credentials behind your "World" source?

 

13. Your Perkovich evidence says Japan hates nuclear weapons in its territory. Doesn't this take out your entire aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What is our extended nuclear deterrent presence?

 

2. Will there be troops in Japan post plan? yes we are removing nuclear deterrents and all troops related or operating the nuclear deterrents

 

3. Why is now the key time for any of this? Most of your evidence if from the early 2000s. not most of my cards are for 2000, all of our ev from then talks about how it would be good if they japan go nuclear or is an impact. now is the key time bc. Asian powers are starting to rise up and get pissed that we have serious ammo AKA nuclear det.

 

4. Your Eberstdat evidence says U.S. protection of SOKO leads to all this bad shit - how does the plan solve when we still have troops in SOKO post plan? well its not troops who can magically fly to SOKO and save them from NOKO its the nuclear deterrents. SO when we remove nuclear deterrents japan can deal with the problems in the region

 

5. What is the alliance like between SOKO and Japan right now?

doesn't matter at all they want to protect the region bc NOKO is fucked up

6. If American presence is the root cause of Chinese aggression, why are we only seeing Chinese aggression now when we've had bases for 50 years? Walt from 2010 specifically states that right now china wants to be a hegemon and will do whatever is necessary. The thing is they wont be as pissed at japan bc they are not really a hegemon and are just protecting the region from the scary NOKO. America right now with our nukes is just trying to look like were bad ass and throwing are nukes trying to protect the world

 

7. Your Krauthammer evidence is indicative of the west containing China. Doesn't this make your impacts inevitable post plan? sherrill says japan can contain. we cannot. right now in the squo we are containing and its not working and its not good for our image.

 

8. Your Kupchan evidence that American presence prevents Asian stability if from 98. Why haven't we seen your imapcts? we actually have seen a certain loss in asian cooperation do to our deterrents.

 

9.The U.S. has many bilateral alliances with Asian countries, such as Japan and South korea - if those nations become engaged in combat, does the U.S. just chill there and watch? we have troops. but there will be no combat because japan nuclearization solves big time bro

 

10. Will there be no conflict in Asia post plan? when there is japan deterrence will solve better than US. but lets hope not

 

11. When are we going to see these countries declare war your Layne in 96 evidence is indicative of? it says as soon as Asian countries become ambitious about nuclearization that our deterrents would be in the way. And other countries are becoming ambitious. now is key

 

12. What are your credentials behind your "World" source? no clue bro

 

13. Your Perkovich evidence says Japan hates nuclear weapons in its territory. Doesn't this take out your entire aff? it says that US extended det. is not wanted. but the first line says "There's a desire for presence"

 

 

cheel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What is our extended nuclear deterrent presence?

You didn't answer this.

2. Will there be troops in Japan post plan? yes we are removing nuclear deterrents and all troops related or operating the nuclear deterrents

OK, your Bandow evidence says ANY form of the U.S. protecting Japan creates a security breakdown in Asia. How do you solve this?

 

4. Your Eberstdat evidence says U.S. protection of SOKO leads to all this bad shit - how does the plan solve when we still have troops in SOKO post plan? well its not troops who can magically fly to SOKO and save them from NOKO its the nuclear deterrents. SO when we remove nuclear deterrents japan can deal with the problems in the region

No, your evidence says that it is the alliance between the U.S. and SOKO that fails to create peace - how does the plan end the alliance if we still have a bilateral treaty through our troops?

 

5. What is the alliance like between SOKO and Japan right now?

doesn't matter at all they want to protect the region bc NOKO is fucked up

OK, how do we even know then that they will cooperate post plan then?

6. If American presence is the root cause of Chinese aggression, why are we only seeing Chinese aggression now when we've had bases for 50 years? Walt from 2010 specifically states that right now china wants to be a hegemon and will do whatever is necessary. The thing is they wont be as pissed at japan bc they are not really a hegemon and are just protecting the region from the scary NOKO. America right now with our nukes is just trying to look like were bad ass and throwing are nukes trying to protect the world

OK, your Krauthammer evidence then says though that "China is more an old-style dictatorship, not on a messianic mission, just out for power. It is much more like late 19th century Germany" How is Japan supposed to contain China post plan if they are this evil, have a much larger nuclear arsenal than Japan, could nuke Japan by the time Japan has a nuclear arsenal, and has a much larger country than Japan?

7. Your Krauthammer evidence is indicative of the west containing China. Doesn't this make your impacts inevitable post plan? sherrill says japan can contain. we cannot. right now in the squo we are containing and its not working and its not good for our image.

I'm not asking about your Sherrill evidence, your Krauthammer evidence says that if the West fails to contain China it will lead to WW3. Doesn't that make this inevitable?

 

That evidence also says in the non underlined part the only way to solve containment is "Containment of such a bully must begin early in its career. That means building relations with China's neighbors, starting with Vietnam. For all the emotion surrounding our decision to normalize relations with Vietnam, its significance is coldly geopolitical: Vietnam is China's traditional enemy (they fought a brief war in 1979). We must therefore make it our friend. A map tells you the rest of a containment strategy: 1) a new security relationship with democratic India, now freed from its odd, cold war alliance with the Soviets; 2) renewing the U.S.- Japan alliance, now threatened by a U.S. Administration so hell-bent on selling carburetors in Kyoto that it is blithely jeopardizing the keystone of our Pacific security; and 3) cozying up to the Russians, who, however ornery elsewhere, have a common interest in boxing in China. ", how does the plan solve this?

 

14. What is the timeframe for Japan nuclearization?

 

15. Your Rhule evidence is literally indicative of U.S. military presence preventing prolif - how do you solve this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I judge. I can post a paradigm if necessary. I will basically vote on anything that is argued well

 

Sure. I can get the 1nc up when those questions are answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I judge? Case: I like case debate, this is where most of the clash happens in my experience.

T: Don't run stupid T definitions that make no sense. I do vote on T.

DA's: I'm good with DA's. If you run politics, make sure you have good ev/arguments.

CP's: I prefer functionally comptetitve CP's, but will accept Word PICs IF there is a clear reason for them. NO STUPID ONES.

Theory: If you run it well, I will vote on theory, but I will not give a team a win on pure theory alone.

K's: I am good with most K's. I understand the general theory behind some of them. You need to explain why the other team's arguments apply.

 

But basically, I'll vote on anything assuming it actually makes some sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump? Cross-x?

 

Bump. Is this round still happening?

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...