Jump to content
BHS_debater

Round 386: [MILITARY] BHS_debater (aff) vs. jsmith36 (neg)

Recommended Posts

Dont care who it is. I wanna go aff, and i want a real (no ashtar or any other joke stuff) policy (no K) round.

 

Sounds good. I'm in. 2500/1500 +- 100?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, just reading the tags/authors, and the highlighted. Yeah, judges would be good

 

OK. What about Nelson 09, Klare 10, Kretkowski 10, Stewart 10, Friedman 10, Kagan 7, Brezezinski 5, Stewart 9, and Stewart 10? There is nothing highlighted in my version, just lots of underlining.

 

Did I get the right version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How many troops do you leave in Afghanistan?

 

2. Can you quantify it (i.e. number/percentage of troops that will remain)?

 

3. Do you change the mission of the remaining troops?

 

4. Besides removing troops, do you change the status quo in any way?

 

5. What do the remaining troops do? What is their mission?

 

6. Can you explain the brink for budget deficits?

 

7. Your overstretch/Friedman 10 card says that the plan creates a strategic reserve of troops. Where are those troops located, and what will they do?

 

8. As per your Stewart 09 card, what is the mission for the "lighter presence"? How many troops will remain? What will they do?

 

9. What is the timeframe for removing troops?

 

10. Why didn't the unilateralism of the Bush era trigger the impacts of the Dyer 04/Zakaria 08 cards?

 

11. Isn't primacy/hegemony incompatible with multilateralism?

 

Maybe more later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How many troops do you leave in Afghanistan?

A level consistent with counter terrorism. We will defend about 20,000

 

2. Can you quantify it (i.e. number/percentage of troops that will remain)?

about 20,000

 

3. Do you change the mission of the remaining troops?

Yes. COIN and COTE are totally different missions/strategies

 

4. Besides removing troops, do you change the status quo in any way?

Removing troops is the foundation of the change. That is what the plan itself changes, along with essentially the strategy of the war. We, through out advantages, change our image, our reserves, our diplomacy, foreign policy

 

5. What do the remaining troops do? What is their mission?

By reducing our presence to a counter terrorism level it allows us to continue to complete projects like bringing electricity, water, and education, as well as continuing to allow for operations against al qaeda. The US military would support the afghan military. By reducing our presence to counter terrorism we are able to maintain a smaller presence in the country for a longer period of time.

 

6. Can you explain the brink for budget deficits?

Its already starting to happen now. COIN costs a hella ton. By sticking to it the only outcome can be budget paralysis

 

7. Your overstretch/Friedman 10 card says that the plan creates a strategic reserve of troops. Where are those troops located, and what will they do?

Strategic reserve. I.E., troops here at home, who live with their families, and can be deployed when needed.

 

8. As per your Stewart 09 card, what is the mission for the "lighter presence"? How many troops will remain? What will they do?

I feel like this is repetitive. Refer to above. Continue smaller scale operations against known terrorist threats, support/build/assist the ANSF, do projects like bring electriciity water and education to increase afghan support for the coalition and the gov rather than them supporting the terrorists.

 

9. What is the timeframe for removing troops?

Drawdown starts immediately, done as fast as infrastructure/resources allow

 

10. Why didn't the unilateralism of the Bush era trigger the impacts of the Dyer 04/Zakaria 08 cards?

The cards were written in the middle of the Bush era unilat as a response to it. The ev is saying failure to curb away from these trends risks the impacts. Oh, and the fact that problems like population pressures, resources, and regional conflicts are all occurring at high rates today probably means that our impact stories are true and stopping them before they result in the impacts is a good thing.

 

11. Isn't primacy/hegemony incompatible with multilateralism?

Not at all. I dont really know how you want me to answer this. Yes/no or explain it...i guess both. No. They are not. We defend that right now COIN is shredding our diplomacy and credibility. Thats key to things like population pressures, resources, diseases, climate, prolif, etc. We also defend that COIN is killing our hard power, which is key to ensuring there are no great power wars, that we can respond to threats with hard power if they arise. The multi-faceted approach is the only way to effectively solve the multitude of problems/threats we face. One is only as good as the other, they cant exist without one another.

 

Maybe more later...

 

Sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.mediafire.com/?vf1b38j3dqzutdv here it is. Sorry when i did the word count it messed up the highlighting and i didnt notice it. This is the final one. I'm "reading" the tags, and the highlighted.

 

Also, I understand you fiat a shift to counter-terrorism as per your Stewart 10 card. Do you also fiat a shift to "development" as well?

 

1NC will be up as soon as I have the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I understand you fiat a shift to counter-terrorism as per your Stewart 10 card. Do you also fiat a shift to "development" as well?

 

1NC will be up as soon as I have the answer.

 

We will defend that all that is just part of the shift to counterterrorism. Its part of troop reduction and mission change. Its just all one action.

 

Just an FYI. I work today so i probably wont be back on to do CX until tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge (I loke straight up db8s)

- I'll vote on practically anything

- in order for me to look to an argument it should have a warrant and it would be hard to not intervene if it wasn't impacted as well.

- I've gone for Ptx and Case most rounds this year, so I know straight up debate fairly well.

- The more clash there is, the less intervention.

- I will probably look at a large number of cards post-round, but i'll disregard any cards not extended in the last two speeches with a warrant (and probs impact).

- "Voter for fairness and education" is not enough to get me to vote on theory - the shell should either have proof of in round abuse or a reason not to just reject the argument. If neither are present, even a dropped theory arg is a reason to reject the argument.

 

Finally, please try to finish this round because I try to write out comments during the round and flow, and often those things go wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, ended up working open to close yesterday so i didnt get home until late.

 

1. You say reduce CAN be eliminate, but not that it has to be. Why dont we meet if reduce can also be non-elimination?

 

2. You ran 5 other offcase positions. Please for the love of god prove how your standards are quantifiable.

 

3. Why does potential abuse matter? Should you lose because of potential conditionality?

 

4. Explain your "substantial is without material quals" stuff

 

5. On the environment CP, straight up, not talking about any of the unnecessary crap, what simply is the objective of the CP?

 

6. How do you clean up the military bases if you leave the entirety of the presence at the bases?

 

7. Your ev outlines 2 things - spills and burn pits - as environmental problems. Why cant we do the plan and fix the spill and stop burning things?

 

8. Where does your watson 10 ev say even one thing about needing substantial presence to cleanup? I'm not seeing the warrants...

 

9. In Lee 10, once again where are the warrants of "cant rapid withdraw and solve burn pits"

 

10. Lindsay-Polland & Morgan 98 is talking about a generalized "overseas" cleanup. How does just afghan solve the internal link to I-law if this ev says it has to be all of overseas?

 

11. Does the plan result in abandonment of US participation from I-law? Why dont other US violations trigger the impacts already?

 

12. How are the ilaw disad impacts unique in any way.

 

13. Where does Ferencz 2 indidcate it turns diplomacy? Warrants?

 

14. On the env. damage disad your lee 10 ev - how does reducing presence by like 100,000 and drastically scaling back operations not solve for a majority of US military pollution?

 

15. Your lang of 7 says "first steps are key". Why wouldnt shutting down some coal plants be better?

 

16. Do you seriously defend solving afghan solves your de shalit of 4?

 

17. Where does hooker 4 on the consult say they'd say yes to the specific 1AC?

 

18. Are you defending multiple realms?

 

19. Status of the CP's?

 

20. Status of the DA's?

 

21. Status of T?

 

22. Where does the CMR link say anything about our 1AC?

 

 

maybe more to come. I work today again. Just FYI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont care who it is. I wanna go aff, and i want a real (no ashtar or any other joke stuff) policy (no K) round.

 

 

Im in but how do u do this its my first time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, ended up working open to close yesterday so i didnt get home until late.

 

No problem.

 

1. You say reduce CAN be eliminate, but not that it has to be. Why dont we meet if reduce can also be non-elimination?

 

Two reasons: First, changing the mission isn't a reduction. Second, we'll win that a reduction to zero is the best interpretation for debate.

 

2. You ran 5 other offcase positions. Please for the love of god prove how your standards are quantifiable.

 

I don't understand the question. What is "quantifiable"?

 

3. Why does potential abuse matter? Should you lose because of potential conditionality?

 

I don't know what "potential conditionality" means. Potential abuse should matter because even if I'm really prepared and good enough to win on the flow, that doesn't justify you running a non-topical Aff.

 

4. Explain your "substantial is without material quals" stuff

 

It means that to be substantial, you can't place "material qualifications" on your plan. That means you can't make any limitations or restrictions on your reduction.

 

5. On the environment CP, straight up, not talking about any of the unnecessary crap, what simply is the objective of the CP?

 

The counterplan leaves more presence than you do, so that they can clean up the environmental damage caused by our presence.

 

6. How do you clean up the military bases if you leave the entirety of the presence at the bases?

 

The CP doesn't leave ALL presence. It reduces presence by a non-substantial amount, but doesn't leave all. The presence itself isn't the problem. Our Nasuti 10 card says that the reason its not being cleaned up is because the USFG doesn't want to. The CP fiats that they clean it up - that doesn't happen in the world of the AFF or the SQUO.

 

7. Your ev outlines 2 things - spills and burn pits - as environmental problems. Why cant we do the plan and fix the spill and stop burning things?

 

First, that's just two examples. There is more damage than that, if you want to make that argument.

 

Second, the Watson 10 card describes the massive amount of work it takes to clean up damage. You can't substantially reduce troops and leave enough behind to clean up the mess.

 

Third, it proves the resolution untrue. Since "substantial" means without material qualifications, it proves that leaving behind troops to cleanup (which is a material qualification) is the only way to solve the impacts. Since the resolution isn't true, it's a reason to vote Neg.

 

8. Where does your watson 10 ev say even one thing about needing substantial presence to cleanup? I'm not seeing the warrants...

 

It talks about the massive amount of work, time and money needed to clean up the damage. If you want to read a card saying that we can clean up the damage with six guys and a broom, feel free...

 

9. In Lee 10, once again where are the warrants of "cant rapid withdraw and solve burn pits"

 

There is an overuse of the "emergency" provision now. It is logical to assume that a sudden and rapid withdraw will, at the very least, continue the emergency authorization - it certainly won't end its use.

 

10. Lindsay-Polland & Morgan 98 is talking about a generalized "overseas" cleanup. How does just afghan solve the internal link to I-law if this ev says it has to be all of overseas?

 

You have to read the Lindsey Pollard & Morgan ev and the IEER ev together. Even if there is environmental damage around other bases, we're not rapidly withdrawing now. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the damage is essentially permanent. We need comply with I-Law in this instance to maintain the integrity of the system.

 

11. Does the plan result in abandonment of US participation from I-law? Why dont other US violations trigger the impacts already?

 

To answer the first part of your question, Yes. Once we withdraw and don't clean up our mess, that violates I-Law. The IEER card talks about how every instance is key, especially in the context of our Lindsey-Pollard & Morgan ev. We're not leaving behind poisoned bases anywhere else.

 

To answer the second part of your question, there is a threshold. Obama has made efforts to comply with I-Law. Simply throwing up our middle finger to the people of Afghanistan (and the rest of the world) by doing the plan would be a huge violation.

12. How are the ilaw disad impacts unique in any way.

 

I don't know what the question "How are the "impacts" unique?" means. The disad is unique for the reasons stated above. The impact is that we need I-Law to solve the impacts. Otherwise, we'll all be extinct. If you make a non-unique, I'll read some cards that say I-Law strong now.

 

13. Where does Ferencz 2 indidcate it turns diplomacy? Warrants?

 

By doing the plan, you violate I-Law. Ferencz says that I-Law is key to global cooperation. Your Dyer 04 card talks about the importance of international "trust". Your Zakaria 08 card talks about "coordinated approach". Both of those are inconsistent with violating international law, especially in the context of our IEER ev.

 

14. On the env. damage disad your lee 10 ev - how does reducing presence by like 100,000 and drastically scaling back operations not solve for a majority of US military pollution?

 

The pollution already exists. It won't be solved in the world of the SQUO or the Aff. That's Nasuti 10.

 

15. Your lang of 7 says "first steps are key". Why wouldnt shutting down some coal plants be better?

 

Cause coal plants in the US aren't damaging the water supply in Afghanistan.

 

16. Do you seriously defend solving afghan solves your de shalit of 4?

 

I'm arguing that Environmental Justice is a moral obligation. That means that we are morally obligated to clean up our mess. I don't know how to answer your question beyond that...

 

17. Where does hooker 4 on the consult say they'd say yes to the specific 1AC?

 

Hooker gives an example where the military said Yes, even though they didn't want to, because they were consulted. I've got another 30 pages of ev. if you want to make that argument in the 2AC.

 

18. Are you defending multiple realms?

 

I don't know what that means. Can you explain it?

 

19. Status of the CP's?

 

Both are dispositional.

 

20. Status of the DA's?

 

DA's usually don't have a "status".

 

21. Status of T?

 

See my answer to #20.

 

22. Where does the CMR link say anything about our 1AC?

 

It says the military feels we're not committed to maintaining presence in Afghanistan and that they'll be pissed if we withdraw.

 

maybe more to come. I work today again. Just FYI

 

Looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Two reasons: First, changing the mission isn't a reduction. Second, we'll win that a reduction to zero is the best interpretation for debate.

Do we not remove about 100,000 troops?

 

2. You ran 5 other offcase positions. Please for the love of god prove how your standards are quantifiable.

 

I don't understand the question. What is "quantifiable"?

How do your standards hold any weight or credibility when you prove most of them false with your other 5 offcase

 

3. Why does potential abuse matter? Should you lose because of potential conditionality?

 

I don't know what "potential conditionality" means. Potential abuse should matter because even if I'm really prepared and good enough to win on the flow, that doesn't justify you running a non-topical Aff.

If you could potentially spike out of some arguments should the judges drop you for it?

 

4. Explain your "substantial is without material quals" stuff

 

It means that to be substantial, you can't place "material qualifications" on your plan. That means you can't make any limitations or restrictions on your reduction.

1. Provide a def that says that

2. How does this not absolutely slaughter aff ground

3. Why is this good for debate in any way

 

 

 

 

7. Your ev outlines 2 things - spills and burn pits - as environmental problems. Why cant we do the plan and fix the spill and stop burning things?

 

First, that's just two examples. There is more damage than that, if you want to make that argument.

 

Second, the Watson 10 card describes the massive amount of work it takes to clean up damage. You can't substantially reduce troops and leave enough behind to clean up the mess.

Where is the ev that lists these other "problems"? And also, yeah alot of work, i have a job and do alot of work by myself. I'll ask once again, and please answer directly this time. Where in the ev does it say a substantial number of troops needs to remain to clean up.

 

 

8. Where does your watson 10 ev say even one thing about needing substantial presence to cleanup? I'm not seeing the warrants...

 

It talks about the massive amount of work, time and money needed to clean up the damage. If you want to read a card saying that we can clean up the damage with six guys and a broom, feel free...

I'll ask once again. Please answer my question. Where does your ev say we need lots of troops

 

9. In Lee 10, once again where are the warrants of "cant rapid withdraw and solve burn pits"

 

There is an overuse of the "emergency" provision now. It is logical to assume that a sudden and rapid withdraw will, at the very least, continue the emergency authorization - it certainly won't end its use.

I assume the 1AC solves the CP and heg and diplomacy. I win? I assume i'm topical. I win? No. Screw assuptions. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me. (get it? ass-u-me?) Where are the warrants buddy.

 

10. Lindsay-Polland & Morgan 98 is talking about a generalized "overseas" cleanup. How does just afghan solve the internal link to I-law if this ev says it has to be all of overseas?

 

You have to read the Lindsey Pollard & Morgan ev and the IEER ev together. Even if there is environmental damage around other bases, we're not rapidly withdrawing now. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the damage is essentially permanent. We need comply with I-Law in this instance to maintain the integrity of the system.

Did these authors write their articles saying "i wont put this in here because IEER will do it for me"? Where dos Pollard and Morgan ever say that doing one base solves for their arguments

 

11. Does the plan result in abandonment of US participation from I-law? Why dont other US violations trigger the impacts already?

 

To answer the first part of your question, Yes. Once we withdraw and don't clean up our mess, that violates I-Law. The IEER card talks about how every instance is key, especially in the context of our Lindsey-Pollard & Morgan ev. We're not leaving behind poisoned bases anywhere else.

Except in *gasp* iraq? Which your ev says is a big deal. So Iraq withdrawals make your I-law violations non-unique?

 

 

12. How are the ilaw disad impacts unique in any way.

 

I don't know what the question "How are the "impacts" unique?" means. The disad is unique for the reasons stated above. The impact is that we need I-Law to solve the impacts. Otherwise, we'll all be extinct. If you make a non-unique, I'll read some cards that say I-Law strong now.

Sweet, please read those i-law strong now cards so i can read the list of US I-law violations and you'll have proved my point that its non-unique.

 

13. Where does Ferencz 2 indidcate it turns diplomacy? Warrants?

 

By doing the plan, you violate I-Law. Ferencz says that I-Law is key to global cooperation. Your Dyer 04 card talks about the importance of international "trust". Your Zakaria 08 card talks about "coordinated approach". Both of those are inconsistent with violating international law, especially in the context of our IEER ev.

No. Screw IEER here. Your claim Ferencz says "diplomacy is killed by this" - where

 

14. On the env. damage disad your lee 10 ev - how does reducing presence by like 100,000 and drastically scaling back operations not solve for a majority of US military pollution?

 

The pollution already exists. It won't be solved in the world of the SQUO or the Aff. That's Nasuti 10.

IF THE POLLUTION EXISTS HOW DO YOU SOLVE FOR IT??

 

15. Your lang of 7 says "first steps are key". Why wouldnt shutting down some coal plants be better?

 

Cause coal plants in the US aren't damaging the water supply in Afghanistan.

Your ev says pollution globally is bad....right?

 

16. Do you seriously defend solving afghan solves your de shalit of 4?

 

I'm arguing that Environmental Justice is a moral obligation. That means that we are morally obligated to clean up our mess. I don't know how to answer your question beyond that...

Why does solving for afghanistan solve our "moral obligation" to the world to stop polution

17. Where does hooker 4 on the consult say they'd say yes to the specific 1AC?

 

Hooker gives an example where the military said Yes, even though they didn't want to, because they were consulted. I've got another 30 pages of ev. if you want to make that argument in the 2AC.

When have they said yes to withdrawing COIN troops from afghanistan? Was The Korean War different that AFghan?

 

18. Are you defending multiple realms?

 

I don't know what that means. Can you explain it?

No. We'll get to it in the 2AC

 

19. Status of the CP's?

 

Both are dispositional.

Explain your interp of dispo

 

20. Status of the DA's?

 

DA's usually don't have a "status".

And people dont usually read non-unique DA's. Please answer the status of the DA's

 

21. Status of T?

 

See my answer to #20.

See my answer to #20. Please answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Two reasons: First, changing the mission isn't a reduction. Second, we'll win that a reduction to zero is the best interpretation for debate.

Do we not remove about 100,000 troops?

 

I don't know how many troops you reduce. Your plan text doesn't say.

2. You ran 5 other offcase positions. Please for the love of god prove how your standards are quantifiable.

 

I don't understand the question. What is "quantifiable"?

How do your standards hold any weight or credibility when you prove most of them false with your other 5 offcase

 

None of my standards are affected by the number of off-case positions I ran.

 

Brite line says that a 100% reduction is the clearest standard - it's very easy to tell what a 100% reduction is (as opposed to some other arbitrary number).

 

Bi-directionality: You change the direction of the topic to kill core Neg generic ground. I can't run a Hege DA because you've got a head start on the link turns.

 

Predictability: The fact that I have multiple generic args. doesn't mean that your Aff is predictable.

 

Limits: Having 5 off-case positions doesn't change the fact that we should limit out Affs that change the mission of troops left in country.

3. Why does potential abuse matter? Should you lose because of potential conditionality?

 

I don't know what "potential conditionality" means. Potential abuse should matter because even if I'm really prepared and good enough to win on the flow, that doesn't justify you running a non-topical Aff.

If you could potentially spike out of some arguments should the judges drop you for it?

 

No. The AFF is required to be topical. The NEG is not required to run positions unconditionally.

 

4. Explain your "substantial is without material quals" stuff

 

It means that to be substantial, you can't place "material qualifications" on your plan. That means you can't make any limitations or restrictions on your reduction.

1. Provide a def that says that

 

modification, limitation, or restriction: to endorse a plan without qualification. (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifications)

 

2. How does this not absolutely slaughter aff ground

 

You can choose which countries to reduce from, how much presence to reduce, and what kind of presence to reduce. But if you say "reduce presence AND change the mission, that's a material qualification.

3. Why is this good for debate in any way

 

Because it helps prevent AFFs from spiking out of the NEG offense.

 

 

7. Your ev outlines 2 things - spills and burn pits - as environmental problems. Why cant we do the plan and fix the spill and stop burning things?

 

First, that's just two examples. There is more damage than that, if you want to make that argument.

 

Second, the Watson 10 card describes the massive amount of work it takes to clean up damage. You can't substantially reduce troops and leave enough behind to clean up the mess.

Where is the ev that lists these other "problems"? And also, yeah alot of work, i have a job and do alot of work by myself. I'll ask once again, and please answer directly this time. Where in the ev does it say a substantial number of troops needs to remain to clean up.

 

I'm not putting a bunch of ev up during CX. Make the analytical in the 2AC, and I'll read ev in the block.

 

Next, I'm making an argument based on the evidence. The card doesn't say "substantial number of troops" - but debate is about more than just evidence - it's using the evidence to make conclusions.

 

8. Where does your watson 10 ev say even one thing about needing substantial presence to cleanup? I'm not seeing the warrants...

 

It talks about the massive amount of work, time and money needed to clean up the damage. If you want to read a card saying that we can clean up the damage with six guys and a broom, feel free...

I'll ask once again. Please answer my question. Where does your ev say we need lots of troops

 

See above.

 

9. In Lee 10, once again where are the warrants of "cant rapid withdraw and solve burn pits"

 

There is an overuse of the "emergency" provision now. It is logical to assume that a sudden and rapid withdraw will, at the very least, continue the emergency authorization - it certainly won't end its use.

I assume the 1AC solves the CP and heg and diplomacy. I win? I assume i'm topical. I win? No. Screw assuptions. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me. (get it? ass-u-me?) Where are the warrants buddy.

 

Dude, I don't want to get into a pissing match. I answered your question. If you don't like the answer, MAKE THE ARGUMENT in the 2AC.

 

10. Lindsay-Polland & Morgan 98 is talking about a generalized "overseas" cleanup. How does just afghan solve the internal link to I-law if this ev says it has to be all of overseas?

 

You have to read the Lindsey Pollard & Morgan ev and the IEER ev together. Even if there is environmental damage around other bases, we're not rapidly withdrawing now. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the damage is essentially permanent. We need comply with I-Law in this instance to maintain the integrity of the system.

Did these authors write their articles saying "i wont put this in here because IEER will do it for me"? Where dos Pollard and Morgan ever say that doing one base solves for their arguments

 

No single piece of evidence makes a complete argument. All evidence has to be read in combination.

 

11. Does the plan result in abandonment of US participation from I-law? Why dont other US violations trigger the impacts already?

 

To answer the first part of your question, Yes. Once we withdraw and don't clean up our mess, that violates I-Law. The IEER card talks about how every instance is key, especially in the context of our Lindsey-Pollard & Morgan ev. We're not leaving behind poisoned bases anywhere else.

Except in *gasp* iraq? Which your ev says is a big deal. So Iraq withdrawals make your I-law violations non-unique?

 

There is ev. that environmental cleanup in Iraq will happen. Again, I'm not reading it during C-X. Make the analytic in the 2AC, and I'll read it in the block.

 

 

12. How are the ilaw disad impacts unique in any way.

 

I don't know what the question "How are the "impacts" unique?" means. The disad is unique for the reasons stated above. The impact is that we need I-Law to solve the impacts. Otherwise, we'll all be extinct. If you make a non-unique, I'll read some cards that say I-Law strong now.

Sweet, please read those i-law strong now cards so i can read the list of US I-law violations and you'll have proved my point that its non-unique.

 

See above. Not reading ev. during C-X.

 

13. Where does Ferencz 2 indidcate it turns diplomacy? Warrants?

 

By doing the plan, you violate I-Law. Ferencz says that I-Law is key to global cooperation. Your Dyer 04 card talks about the importance of international "trust". Your Zakaria 08 card talks about "coordinated approach". Both of those are inconsistent with violating international law, especially in the context of our IEER ev.

No. Screw IEER here. Your claim Ferencz says "diplomacy is killed by this" - where

 

Legal agreements and law provide the framework in which international society balances its inconsistent and conflicting interests.

 

14. On the env. damage disad your lee 10 ev - how does reducing presence by like 100,000 and drastically scaling back operations not solve for a majority of US military pollution?

 

The pollution already exists. It won't be solved in the world of the SQUO or the Aff. That's Nasuti 10.

IF THE POLLUTION EXISTS HOW DO YOU SOLVE FOR IT??

 

Pollution can be cleaned up. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

15. Your lang of 7 says "first steps are key". Why wouldnt shutting down some coal plants be better?

 

Cause coal plants in the US aren't damaging the water supply in Afghanistan.

Your ev says pollution globally is bad....right?

 

Yes...

 

16. Do you seriously defend solving afghan solves your de shalit of 4?

 

I'm arguing that Environmental Justice is a moral obligation. That means that we are morally obligated to clean up our mess. I don't know how to answer your question beyond that...

Why does solving for afghanistan solve our "moral obligation" to the world to stop polution

 

Moral obligation means we should clean up all environmental damage we cause. We caused environmental damage in Afghanistan. Thus we should clean it up.

 

17. Where does hooker 4 on the consult say they'd say yes to the specific 1AC?

 

Hooker gives an example where the military said Yes, even though they didn't want to, because they were consulted. I've got another 30 pages of ev. if you want to make that argument in the 2AC.

When have they said yes to withdrawing COIN troops from afghanistan? Was The Korean War different that AFghan?

 

If you make the argument in the 2AC, I'll read "Generals Say Yes" cards.

 

On your second question, of course there are differences. For example, one was in Korea.

18. Are you defending multiple realms?

 

I don't know what that means. Can you explain it?

No. We'll get to it in the 2AC

 

19. Status of the CP's?

 

Both are dispositional.

Explain your interp of dispo

 

I can't kick the CP if there are offensive reasons to reject it (i.e. a disad to the CP). If there are those reasons, I can concede a defensive argument like a perm or a "No Solvency" argument, but I'll still have to answer the offense.

 

20. Status of the DA's?

 

DA's usually don't have a "status".

And people dont usually read non-unique DA's. Please answer the status of the DA's

 

Dude, I'm not going to answer snarky questions. But if you really want to start making DAs have statuses, I'll say Dispo. See above on what that means.

 

21. Status of T?

 

See my answer to #20.

See my answer to #20. Please answer.

 

How about dispo? See above.

 

 

So can we see some 2AC? I think 21 questions plus 21 followups is pretty much the limit of C-X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So can we see some 2AC? I think 21 questions plus 21 followups is pretty much the limit of C-X.

 

I've started the 2AC. I should be able to have it up by tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Was the CBCRA voted into law?

 

2. Why are "terms of art" good?

 

3. Can you explain what "And textuality subsumes other arguments like ground since the text is the only predictable basis for argumentation" means further?

 

4. How is "shift[ing] U.S. strategy and force posture" as per your Long 10 card "one action"? Can you describe your last point on T more in depth?

 

5. What is the link between potential abuse and spec arguments?

 

6. Can you describe your legal training and experience in courtrooms that leads you to conclude that "judges in courtrooms don’t throw cases out because they might unbalance something in the future."

 

7. Why does dispo discourage you from making perms and defensive arguments if I still have to answer any offense?

 

8. Why aren't permutations "multiple worlds"?

 

9. Where in any of your CT cards does it say environmental cleanup?

 

10. If the CP does the plan once environmental damage is cleaned up,why doesn't that solve the case?

 

11. What are Tom Krebsbach's qualifications to speak on international law?

 

12. Can you pick out the part of the card where Kretkowski says COIN causes inevitable withdrawal? I understand he says "fatigue" and "abandon foreign policy leadership" - but does he say "withdrawal"?

 

13. If I win that Kretkowski doesn't say we'll withdraw, is the moral imperative argument a reason to vote Aff?

 

14. Why isn't your Stewart 10 card enough of a "military says Yes" card?

 

15. Where in C-X did I say I'm not defending multiple realms?

 

16. My uniqueness card on CMR is from September 2010. Yours is from March 2010. Why doesn't my card assume the developments in your card?

 

17. Why don't developments that happened after your card was written, such as the McChrystal Rolling Stone article, mean your card doesn't accurately describe the world of CMR today?

 

18. Can you explain the warrants behind your Kohn 10 card?

 

19. The non-highlighted section of your Lubold 10 card says "Mullen said it’s time to invest in other departments, such as homeland security, intelligence, and the State Department, whose budget pales compared to massive Pentagon funding."

 

Does your plan invest in those departments?

 

20. Who is Huntington and why is he relevent?

 

Maybe more later.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...