Jump to content
liampirate

Round 397: [MILITARY] Jsmith (aff) vs. liampirate (neg)

Recommended Posts

Terrorism:

Your I/L evidence is about regular, 9-11 level attacks, while Alexander is about the new age of terrorism. Where do you have ev that the plan prevents the new age of super terrorism?

 

Is your only Link solving for the economy?

 

Solvency:

 

What implication does "re-defining our security strategy" have?

 

Do you have evidence that 100 billion will save the defecit?

 

Micro-Militarism:

 

First, what is micro-militarism?

 

What is the terminal impact to overstrech in US forces?

 

Do you have ev that the plan solves micro-militarism?

 

Economy:

 

You have several pieces of ev about solving for the declining value of the dollar. Is this ever I/L'd tot he economy or hegemony?

 

Your Beardon card assumes the collapse of the economies of all western nations - do you claim to solve for that? How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terrorism:

Your I/L evidence is about regular, 9-11 level attacks, while Alexander is about the new age of terrorism. Where do you have ev that the plan prevents the new age of super terrorism?

 

Alexander 08 refers to "contemporary terrorists". Contemporary means "of the present time". Since the terror attacks haven't happened, they would be "contemporary". So to answer your question: all the evidence refers to super-terrorism.

 

Is your only Link solving for the economy?

 

No. 1AC #13 (Pena 11) is also a link.

 

Solvency:

 

What implication does "re-defining our security strategy" have?

 

Reducing our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a radical departure from the status quo. The plan, by reducing presence and slashing the budget, would "re-define our security strategy". Re-defining our strategy is key to solve for all of the advantages.

 

Do you have evidence that 100 billion will save the defecit?

 

1AC #5 (O'Hanlon 10) - "So how much does the deficit need to decline... from defense spending?... To keep deficit and... debt figures in a healthy economic range... defense costs... realistically might be expected to contribute $60 billion in annual defense savings."

 

Micro-Militarism:

 

First, what is micro-militarism?

 

From 1AC #9 (McCoy 10):

 

"empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as "micro-militarism" and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories"

 

What is the terminal impact to overstrech in US forces?

 

As of the 1AC, it's 1AC #10 (McCoy 10). McCoy gives a really vivid scenario about the impacts of overstretch and micro-militarism.

 

Do you have ev that the plan solves micro-militarism?

 

1AC #9 (McCoy 10) says US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a symptom of micro-militarism. We substantially reduce military presence in those countries.

 

Economy:

 

You have several pieces of ev about solving for the declining value of the dollar. Is this ever I/L'd tot he economy or hegemony?

 

Yes. 1AC #7 is a fabulous piece of evidence on this point. Declining value of the dollar leads to an OPEC shift away from the dollar for pricing oil. At the same time, other structural shifts in the oil markets cause an oil shock, triggering economic collapse.

 

Your Beardon card assumes the collapse of the economies of all western nations - do you claim to solve for that? How?

 

The U.S. economy is interlinked to other countries. I'll read a card in the 2AC if you make this argument.

 

 

Sounds good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypothesis tester. More specific questions will help with more specific responses.

 

Thoughts on reasonability on T?

Err Aff or Neg on theory?

Experience with K's and your thoughts on the need for specific links?

 

That's all I can think of right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypothesis tester. More specific questions will help with more specific responses.

 

Joe can judge, though he should know no K's will be read in this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoughts on reasonability on T?

I tend to lean towards competing interps, but it all depends on how the aff handles it. If one side wins reasonibility, I have no problem giving it to them with the same being true for the opposite.

 

Err Aff or Neg on theory?

Probably aff, but chances are, I won't vote on it either way unless there is obvious abuse, or there's been a good amount of work put into it.

 

Experience with K's and your thoughts on the need for specific links?

I like to think I understand the gist of most critiques, and I read some of the literature. I'm not by any means an expert on any criticism though, so make the story behind it clear. With links, if you can point out something the other team did and explain specifically why it bites into the K, I'm sold. A link is specific as long as it's clearly explained, there's no particular area it has to attack in my mind.

 

That's all I can think of right now...

 

And Liam, that's alright haha. I'm trying to get more comfortable with policy arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
last one - do you defend full withdrawal?

 

The 1AC doesn't take a stance on the exact number of reductions beyond defending the word "substantial".

 

However, if you read T reduce = elimination, I'll concede the interp and argue the "we meet" and voters. Also, I won't spike out of any links or PICs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry about the delay, 1nc will be up tomorrow. If you want to start prepping, i can tell you the off case args.

 

No, just put the 1NC up when you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Are there other ways to stop global warming besides strong US/India relations?

 

2. Your Roach 04 card says "taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming."

 

Is that happening in the status quo, and does it happen in the world of the plan or the counterplan?

 

3. When your NYT 09 card says "NATO will fold" are you saying that this means NATO will cease to exist, or that it will leave Afghanistan?

 

4. Why is Afghanistan not critical to any impacts?

 

5. What is the status of the CP?

 

6. If the counterplan was an Affirmative case, would it be topical?

 

7. Why is 1AC #3 that says we're only cutting $352 million not enough to show that we haven't ended our presence, which would save at least $60 billion?

 

8. Since our evidence says we need to substantially reduce our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to save enough money to save the economy, does 1NC #1 on Econ apply?

 

9. How is your Goldstein 85 turn not empirically denied?

 

10. Since 1AC #1 (NPR 11) concede that the US economy is growing now, but 1AC #2 (Seeking Alpha 11) says we need significant budget cuts, what is the impact of the Harding 10 evidence?

 

11. Does the Godhaven 09 card link to the CP as well? If not, why?

 

12. What's the warrant behind the Anzera 05 card?

 

13. Doesn't Anzera concede that the weapons he's talking about are "a space defensive system" meaning not a "space offensive system"?

 

14. What is the Layne 96 card responsive to?

 

15. Your Pop 10 card says the Afghan army needs support for 10-15 years.

 

a. What evidence do you read that we will provide that support?

b. What is the impact to not giving them that support?

c. How much does that support cost?

 

16. Your 1NC #3 on Econ says econ growth is high now. Your 1NC #8 on Econ says banking market and job losses have been killing the economy. How can these both be true?

 

17. What is the relevance of the Baker 09 card?

 

18. What are the warrants behind the Toronto Star 98 card?

 

19. Where in your Radu 9 card does it say ANYTHING about the economy or economic growth?

 

20. Does your Mueller 05 card count the 9/11 attacks OR assume new forms of superterrorism?

 

21. Did you really read a card from 1998 that said there won't be a terror attack? If so, then doesn't the fact that they didn't predict 9/11 mean we probably shouldn't listen to them?

 

22. You read a bunch of ev that talks about terrorists and nukes, but doesn't Alexander 08 predict other things besides nukes? Do you answer those scenarios?

 

23. Doesn't your Reuters 10 card link to the CP?

 

24. Why do we need to prove "uniquness" on an advantage? Did you mean "inherency"?

 

That's all for now... Maybe follow ups. Also, am I correct in assuming you only "read" the highlighted sections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Are there other ways to stop global warming besides strong US/India relations?

Well, we could kill the economy, or initiate other warming deals, but US-India relats could pretty clearly help.

 

2. Your Roach 04 card says "taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming."

Is that happening in the status quo, and does it happen in the world of the plan or the counterplan?

Our Burns ev says that US-India relations are presently going forward to initiate policies that would do this. This would not happen in the world of the plan, but would in the world of the PIC.

 

3. When your NYT 09 card says "NATO will fold" are you saying that this means NATO will cease to exist, or that it will leave Afghanistan?

It will fold in terms of Afghanistan

 

4. Why is Afghanistan not critical to any impacts?

none of your ev is specific to afghanistan. You're going to have to prove Afghanistan is key

5. What is the status of the CP?

condo

6. If the counterplan was an Affirmative case, would it be topical?

no, because it eliminates. Anyways, whats wrong with topical CP's?

7. Why is 1AC #3 that says we're only cutting $352 million not enough to show that we haven't ended our presence, which would save at least $60 billion?

I really don't understand the Q. It is saying that the economy is good now, not that spending is good now. Its an I/L nonu, not a link nonu

8. Since our evidence says we need to substantially reduce our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to save enough money to save the economy, does 1NC #1 on Econ apply?

yes - the argument is that the substantial reduction your ev is talking about already happened

9. How is your Goldstein 85 turn not empirically denied?

There have clearly been wars over competition - I'd cite our war with Kuwait in the later 80's, our involvement in Sierra Leone and our war in Iraq as examples. They havn't gone nuclear because we are just now reaching this stage of nuclear superpowership in which nuclear wars are initiated.

10. Since 1AC #1 (NPR 11) concede that the US economy is growing now, but 1AC #2 (Seeking Alpha 11) says we need significant budget cuts, what is the impact of the Harding 10 evidence?

I really don't understand this Q - I read no NPR evidence or seeking alpha evidence. The impact of the harding evidence is that there is no need to do the plan because the economy is good enough to not trigger your Beardon card.

11. Does the Godhaven 09 card link to the CP as well? If not, why?

um, the CP solves econ, so yes, it does "link" to the CP - I said Afghanistan-specific case turns were NB's, not any case turn.

12. What's the warrant behind the Anzera 05 card?

Economic growth empirically gives the USfg money to spend on going to space.

13. Doesn't Anzera concede that the weapons he's talking about are "a space defensive system" meaning not a "space offensive system"?

A space defensive program would still be seen as a threat to china, russia, etc

14. What is the Layne 96 card responsive to?

any sort of impact you may claim off of leadership of the dollar.

15. Your Pop 10 card says the Afghan army needs support for 10-15 years.

a. What evidence do you read that we will provide that support? we don't, but its pretty empirically proven Obama will continue to provide them support

b. What is the impact to not giving them that support? I dont think thats relevant - they'll give them the support

c. How much does that support cost? probably several tens of billions of dollars

 

16. Your 1NC #3 on Econ says econ growth is high now. Your 1NC #8 on Econ says banking market and job losses have been killing the economy. How can these both be true?

1NC #8 says that the banking market collapsing could trigger the impact. It was misworded.

17. What is the relevance of the Baker 09 card?

Its saying that the Iraq/Afg war doesn't effect the economy - they have enough money for the surge

18. What are the warrants behind the Toronto Star 98 card?

- laws in place

- emperics

19. Where in your Radu 9 card does it say ANYTHING about the economy or economic growth?

It talks about how, when the economy collapses, people go into poverty and then, when in poverty, are deemed useless by terrorist organizations.

20. Does your Mueller 05 card count the 9/11 attacks OR assume new forms of superterrorism?

It talks about new terrorism and al-Qaeda, so it assumes new forms of superterrorism

21. Did you really read a card from 1998 that said there won't be a terror attack? If so, then doesn't the fact that they didn't predict 9/11 mean we probably shouldn't listen to them?

no, it still talks about how the threat of an attack is unrealistic, and it talks about specifically how "a massive terrorist attack with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is...not...likely" - this wasn't in 9-11

22. You read a bunch of ev that talks about terrorists and nukes, but doesn't Alexander 08 predict other things besides nukes? Do you answer those scenarios?

our first 2 crds answer those other scenarios

23. Doesn't your Reuters 10 card link to the CP?

it says Iraq w/d would cause more terror. So, its like a DA that does link to the CP, thus is not a net ben

24. Why do we need to prove "uniquness" on an advantage? Did you mean "inherency"?

Yes, you do need to prove that an advantage is unique

That's all for now... Maybe follow ups. Also, am I correct in assuming you only "read" the highlighted sections?

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What is the impact to your impact turn on stability?

 

I'm not sure which card you're talking about...

 

2. You're not going for trsm, right?

 

I'm conceding terminal defense and answering the turns. That means its probably not something we need to worry about

 

Maybe a few more Q's later

 

Cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2NC: http://www.mediafire.com/?2v74jjv1xn4qp5d

Order is the econ advantage

WC is 2554, which is 5 over the 2ac, so i'll take 5 off the 1nr's WC.

 

I just realized this debate is another good ol' Spokane-Seattle throw down

 

If that URL didn't work for you, here's one that works for me: http://www.fileupyours.com/view/305694/2nc%20v%20jsmith36.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So if I win that saving the economy is good, should the judges vote AFF? If not, why?

 

2. Why is your Apps 10 card not empirically denied after Libya?

 

3. Your Goldstein 87 card (the new 2NC one) says we fight wars when we're in a good economic standing. Weren't we in a recession post-9/11?

 

That's all for now. Maybe more...

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...