Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrMarantz

Round 382: [MILITARY] Blank (aff) vs. New2Debate (neg)

Recommended Posts

Judges, Pl0x.

 

Also, CX:

 

1. What's the job description for a Counter Insurgency soldier? (i.e. how do they "counter" the insurgency?)

 

2. How does the system of Afgani government function currently?

 

3. How does one "assert hegemony?"

 

4. Does your plan pass through normal means?

 

5. What would a "severe hegemonic decline" look like? (i.e. how would we know we were in decline?)

 

6. What's your scenario for al Qaeda/the Taliban getting a nuke?

 

7. What is the date for the most recent piece of evidence read in the 1AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What's the job description for a Counter Insurgency soldier? (i.e. how do they "counter" the insurgency?)

Propaganda, Psy-Ops, Assasinations, Torture. They're also supposed to reassure the people that we're there for a good cause. As we state in the 1AC, they're not fans of warlords, and try to take them out of power, and a huge part of their job is endorsing the central government.

 

2. How does the system of Afgani government function currently?

There's a failing illegit central government. D; The only reason Afghan maintains stability is due to these warlord-ruled "mini-states."

 

3. How does one "assert hegemony?"

Uh, our Kagan card mainly says conflict prevention and guarding waterways.

 

4. Does your plan pass through normal means?

Sure. xP

 

5. What would a "severe hegemonic decline" look like? (i.e. how would we know we were in decline?)

Allies not being as... well, "friendly", allies acting on their own, hostile countries acting a bit more "aggressive" towards the US, and enemy countries being more aggressive towards each other are all "symptoms" of the decline.

As for an actual loss of heg, you can look to the Kagan card for what that would look like. xP

 

6. What's your scenario for al Qaeda/the Taliban getting a nuke?

Well, COIN is hostile to warlords. Warlords are key to Afghan stability and security. So, there are 2 "scenarios" of sorts that could occur

 

1 -- The Taliban becomes WAY more popular than the US, since the people like warlords. So yeah, lots of backlash --> Public support for the Taliban making getting a nuke easier

 

2 -- Centralization -> Instability. Instability makes it really easy for al-Qaeda to get a nuke, and seeing as the only [cited] reasons for why they don't want them is because they're too hard to get, they'd pretty much jump at this oppurtunity.

 

7. What is the date for the most recent piece of evidence read in the 1AC?

January 26th, 2010 :[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a failing illegit central government. D; The only reason Afghan maintains stability is due to these warlord-ruled "mini-states."

 

So just to be clear, there is currently a central government in Afghanistan, but it is failing at carrying out its "duties," as it were?

 

Allies not being as... well, "friendly", allies acting on their own, hostile countries acting a bit more "aggressive" towards the US, and enemy countries being more aggressive towards each other are all "symptoms" of the decline.

As for an actual loss of heg, you can look to the Kagan card for what that would look like. xP

 

So were the North Korean attacks on Yeonpeyong island symptomatic of US hegemonic decline?

 

2 -- Centralization -> Instability. Instability makes it really easy for al-Qaeda to get a nuke, and seeing as the only [cited] reasons for why they don't want them is because they're too hard to get, they'd pretty much jump at this oppurtunity.

 

So would it be fair to say that centralization -> al Qaeda getting a nuke?

 

I'll post 1NC after your response, or should we wait till we have a judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear, there is currently a central government in Afghanistan, but it is failing at carrying out its "duties," as it were?

Pretty much. Or rather, the central government is totally superfluous. As in, not only is it a bad central government, it's totally unneeded [even if it were a good central government, the people like having mini-states better -- there would be lots of backlash.]

 

 

So were the North Korean attacks on Yeonpeyong island symptomatic of US hegemonic decline?

We won't take a stance on this specific instance :3

 

 

So would it be fair to say that centralization -> al Qaeda getting a nuke?

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MINERALS DA. ODAM. D:

Cross-X will be up hopefully by the end of the day : D

 

I have to say, you probably use more emoticons than any other debater on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I just noticed how many emoticons I use. Weird.

 

AAAAAANYWAYS, yeah, can't think of any useful Cross-X questions ATM, the 2AC should hopefully be up within 2 days at the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, sorry... Totally forgot about this round. xP 2AC's taking a while to get under the word limit, sorry D; It should hopefully be up tomorrow, but no promises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's official, my 1NCs are so devastating that they make people give up.

 

FEAR ME

 

Agreed. I was about to sign up to judge, but then I saw the multitude of bumps. I would like to announce that this round is in a vegetative state.

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...