Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Plan: The USFG should substantially invest in military drone bases in the United States

-I realize it's fodder for imperialism and anything kritiking big brother, but it's a way heg could be debated in this topic

-you would be transporting weapons payloads and many definitions of infrastructure are along the lines of "permanent military installations"

 

As someone who has spent a significant amount of time researching and cutting drones evidence (past elims aff) I find it amusing to see multiple posts on these forums about drone bases in the US. I'm not sure what the fascination is with drones but this is a terrible affirmative to defend, it was somewhat successful on the military topic only because it was about removing them.

 

First off, there isn't even a possibility of solvency. The reason we house drones in bases outside the US is becasue they are not intercontinental. Drones have an average fly distance of 800 miles, that's not even half the length of the United States.

 

Second, post-2010 evidence is widely neg biased. Nearly all factual evidence based on performance shows more allies/civilians are killed than 'militants'. There's a convincing argument to be made that drones were the nail in the coffin on US-Pakistan relations. The evidence that does support drones is only politically supportive of the idea of drones, supporting the war on terror. Good teams will realize this quickly and tell you to put all your politically driven 08 evidence in the trash.

 

Please, for your sake, put this aff to rest.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As someone who has spent a significant amount of time researching and cutting drones evidence (past elims aff) I find it amusing to see multiple posts on these forums about drone bases in the US. I'm not sure what the fascination is with drones but this is a terrible affirmative to defend, it was somewhat successful on the military topic only because it was about removing them.

 

First off, there isn't even a possibility of solvency. The reason we house drones in bases outside the US is becasue they are not intercontinental. Drones have an average fly distance of 800 miles, that's not even half the length of the United States.

 

Second, post-2010 evidence is widely neg biased. Nearly all factual evidence based on performance shows more allies/civilians are killed than 'militants'. There's a convincing argument to be made that drones were the nail in the coffin on US-Pakistan relations. The evidence that does support drones is only politically supportive of the idea of drones, supporting the war on terror. Good teams will realize this quickly and tell you to put all your politically driven 08 evidence in the trash.

 

Please, for your sake, put this aff to rest.

 

God all you fucking do is complain. Drones aren't narrowed down just to military drones. There are surveillance drones, relief effort drones, and others. Most drones have large flight capabilities Aka global hawk, U2, etc.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God all you fucking do is complain. Drones aren't narrowed down just to military drones. There are surveillance drones, relief effort drones, and others. Most drones have large flight capabilities Aka global hawk, U2, etc.

 

How did that come off as complaining? I said I found it amusing, and I wasn't aware that conversations about the merits of a plan weren't allowed on a forum about policy debate. I realize there are non-military drones with these capabilities. Before you take my post out of context, did you realize I was specifically targeting military drones because the person I quoted was talking about military drones?

 

"but it's a way heg could be debated in this topic

-you would be transporting weapons payloads and many definitions of infrastructure are along the lines of "permanent military installations"

 

Perhaps you should take less offense to these posts...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm extremely surprised that nobody has even mentioned the concept of e-85 (ethanol) gas stations. This aff would be perfect for a solid environment advantage, and u could also run a heg adv. with an il of competitiveness.

 

High speed rail is another obvious aff, and it seems like this will probably be the SPS of this season. A very similar aff would be implementing a mag lev train in the us.

 

As was already stated, because this years rez is so vague on what type of transportation, many of last year's space affs will be topical as well like sps, any colonization, shuttles.

 

Because it's just investment, many affs will involve reforms to agencies like the DoT, or maybe airline reform or highway reform

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also other agencies (other than the DoT) people.

There is the TSA. I'm pretty sure there will be less politic links dealing with the TSA.

 

So, advocating an aff through unusual agencies may help one's aff.

 

This year I think like Jacob said, there will be many affs from the space topic.

and, since the topic is vague, we may see affs dealing with technology and the internet, maybe with some advantages dealing with id theft or econ impacts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there will be less politic links dealing with the TSA.

 

Ah, yes, the uber-popular TSA.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Minority Report style highway system

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there was something that did predictive analytics or used artificial intelligence or other forms of stuff with big data.

 

Seems like it might help with

1) pre-emptive repairs & building

2) rush hour traffic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I definitely don't agree that transportation infrastructure should be defined as anything other than the normal infrastructure (e.g. roads, rail, sea, air), if you are of the school of through that the resolution can incorporate the transport of specific items (e.g. data, oil, water, etc), then I found an interesting article that may be the basis of a strong policy intervention and it gives you two very strong policy scenarios for advantages - relations (which can go politically as an ally at Nato, UN, etc or with trade and economy impacts) and with energy security (which has a host of middle east impacts).

 

How Obama Lost Canada: Botching relations with the United States' biggest trading partner

Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson

* Derek H Burney is Senior Strategic Adviser at Norton Rose Canada and served as Canadian Ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

* Fen Osler Hampson is Chancellor’s Professor and Director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

Foreign Affairs June 21, 2012

[www].foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-lost-canada

 

Permitting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline should have been an easy diplomatic and economic decision for U.S. President Barack Obama. The completed project would have shipped more than 700,000 barrels a day of Albertan oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast, generated tens of thousands of jobs for U.S. workers, and met the needs of refineries in Texas that are desperately seeking oil from Canada, a more reliable supplier than Venezuela or countries in the Middle East. The project posed little risk to the landscape it traversed. But instead of acting on economic logic, the Obama administration caved to environmental activists in November 2011, postponing until 2013 the decision on whether to allow the pipeline.

Obama’s choice marked a triumph of campaign posturing over pragmatism and diplomacy, and it brought U.S.-Canadian relations to their lowest point in decades. It was hardly the first time that the administration has fumbled issues with Ottawa. Although relations have been civil, they have rarely been productive. Whether on trade, the environment, or Canada’s shared contribution in places such as Afghanistan, time and again the United States has jilted its northern neighbor. If the pattern of neglect continues, Ottawa will get less interested in cooperating with Washington. Already, Canada has reacted by turning elsewhere -- namely, toward Asia -- for more reliable economic partners.

Economically, Canada and the United States are joined at the hip. Each country is the other’s number-one trading partner -- in 2011, the two-way trade in goods and services totaled $681 billion, more than U.S. trade with Mexico or China -- and trade with Canada supports more than eight million U.S. jobs. Yet the Obama administration has recently jeopardized this important relationship. It failed to combat the Buy American provision in Congress’ stimulus bill, which inefficiently excluded Canadian participation in infrastructure spending.

What’s more, by engaging in protectionism, Washington has violated the substance and spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the trade bloc formed in 1994 among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. As a result, NAFTA, which was initially intended as a template for broader trade expansion by all three partners, has languished while each country has negotiated a spaghetti bowl of bilateral trade agreements with other countries. Trilateral economic summits among the NAFTA partners have become little more than photo-ops accompanied by bland communiqués. Bilateral meetings between U.S. and Canadian leaders, which were a regular feature of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush eras, have also mostly fallen by the wayside. Meanwhile, the United States demanded upfront concessions from Canada as the price of entry to negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional free-trade group, while preserving massive agriculture subsidies of its own. The protracted wrangling over a seat at the table does not augur well for meaningful progress.

After years of procrastination, Canada finally secured an agreement for a new Detroit-Windsor bridge -- over which 25 percent of trade between Canada and the United States crosses -- but only after it offered to cover all of the initial costs. The U.S. share is to be repaid over time by the tolls collected, but any shortfalls will rest with Canadian taxpayers. Canada was essentially forced to hold negotiations with Michigan; the U.S. federal government observed quietly from the sidelines.

The United States’ mistreatment of Canada extends beyond economic issues. Washington has also failed to trust and respect its loyal ally. To name one small but telling example, when Canada ran for a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2010, the United States offered little support. For whatever reason, Portugal was a more compelling choice.

One would also think the United States and Canada could find common ground on security, economic, and environmental issues in the Arctic, an area of shared sovereignty and responsibility. Yet there has been little more than senseless bickering and public spats between Ottawa and Washington on who should attend what meeting of Arctic states. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, went out of her way to rake Canada over the coals for hosting a meeting of Arctic coastal nations in March 2010 and failing to invite other countries with “legitimate interests†in the region. But she was also taking a jab at Canada’s long-standing claims to the waters of the Arctic archipelago, including the Northwest Passage, which the United States rejects. While Canada and the United States squabble, Russia and China are aggressively asserting their own interests in the region.

Beginning with Obama’s visit to Ottawa in February 2009, Canada has also made repeated overtures to find consensus on climate change, pressing for common North American approaches and fuel standards to curtail carbon emissions. No representative from the Obama administration showed any interest in such a strategy; instead, the administration preferred a unilateral approach, which died in the Senate. The bilateral “clean energy dialogue†Obama touted during his 2009 visit has become a monologue.

In Afghanistan, Canada is now rapidly scaling back its substantial commitment to the military mission, thanks to the United States’ increasingly erratic, if not embarrassing, direction. Canada has spent billions on the war and lost over 150 soldiers, proportionately more than any other ally, but has received no tangible dividend for its support on bilateral or multilateral issues of concern to it. Canada also participated in NATO’s mission in Libya -- where a Canadian, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, commanded military operations. Canada has no tangible interests of any kind in Afghanistan or Libya. Its participation in those countries, proportionately larger than any other ally, was intended primarily to strengthen the partnership with the United States on the theory that solid multilateral commitments would engender more productive bilateral relations. That proved not to be the case.

The only good news in U.S.-Canadian relations to come out of this White House has been the Beyond the Border declaration, a joint statement that Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued in February 2011. The initiative was supposed to remove much of the bureaucratic sludge that has thickened the U.S.-Canadian border since 9/11, including costly inspection and reporting requirements on virtually all cross-border shipments. Despite the initial fanfare, however, the border initiative has yet to deliver much of substance, and there has been little evidence to suggest that Obama remains engaged.

Of course, the U.S.-Canadian relationship has had its rocky moments before. In the 1970s and 1980s, in response to public concern over the United States’ economic domination of Canada, Ottawa enacted a wide variety of protectionist measures that irritated Washington. Eventually, the two countries recognized their mutual interests and resolved what differences they had, ratifying the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1987 and its successor, NAFTA, seven years later.

Back then, Canada had little choice but to find a way to fix its relationship with the United States, the only game in town. Ottawa is in a different position now. Today, it enjoys a respectable platform of self-confidence, having weathered the financial crisis and ensuing recession far better than the United States. And unlike in the past, Canada can now look beyond its own neighborhood for economic opportunities -- especially to the rising economies of Asia.

Indeed, Canada has made a full-court press in the Asia-Pacific region. It is wooing countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea, which are eager to invest and trade in Canadian minerals, energy, and agricultural products. Harper has announced Canada’s intention to explore free-trade negotiations with China, and talks with Japan, Thailand, India, and South Korea are under way. As Harper put it during a visit to China in February, “We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy.â€

To be sure, Canadian companies will never abandon the U.S. market. Nevertheless, the U.S. recession and the rise of Asia have allowed Canada to diversify its economic relations. In 2010, only 68 percent of Canadian exports were destined for the United States, down from 85 percent in 2000. Canadians are accustomed to benign neglect from a neighbor preoccupied with more urgent global flashpoints, but since that neglect has grown so much as to be malign, they have begun to reappraise their relationship with the United States. As Canada develops closer ties with China and finds more receptive outlets for its exports, the United States may find itself with a less obliging partner to the north.

The Keystone XL pipeline will probably be approved eventually -- the economic consequences of not building it are simply too great -- but it will take a long time to undo the damage its delay has done to U.S.-Canadian relations. Obama’s mishandling of an ordinarily routine pipeline permit awakened Canadians to the problems with depending exclusively on the United States as an export market. Already, Ottawa has shifted toward alternative options that include exporting oil from the west and east coasts of Canada later this decade. To that end, the Harper government introduced legislation that will speed regulatory approval of such projects.

In May 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy gave a speech before the Canadian parliament in which he celebrated the deep ties between the United States and Canada. “Geography has made us neighbors, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners, and necessity has made us allies,†he said. What Kennedy stated then is still true today, and the two countries, linked by shared values and a network of individual contacts, will continue to cooperate for their mutual security and prosperity. Yet none of the truths he listed should excuse neglect. Even relations between close allies require constant care. And when the world’s most powerful country allows narrow political considerations to trample the high-priority interests of its immediate neighbor, it raises questions not only about its ability to maintain an entrenched alliance but also about its capacity for steady global leadership.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: The USFG should substantially invest in launch facilities for *insert rocket here* in the United States

-for the lazy debater

 

Plan: The USFG should substantially invest in military drone bases in the United States

-I realize it's fodder for imperialism and anything kritiking big brother, but it's a way heg could be debated in this topic

-you would be transporting weapons payloads and many definitions of infrastructure are along the lines of "permanent military installations"

Apparently, nothing military is topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I definitely don't agree that transportation infrastructure should be defined as anything other than the normal infrastructure (e.g. roads, rail, sea, air), if you are of the school of through that the resolution can incorporate the transport of specific items (e.g. data, oil, water, etc), then I found an interesting article that may be the basis of a strong policy intervention and it gives you two very strong policy scenarios for advantages - relations (which can go politically as an ally at Nato, UN, etc or with trade and economy impacts) and with energy security (which has a host of middle east impacts).

 

How Obama Lost Canada: Botching relations with the United States' biggest trading partner

Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson

* Derek H Burney is Senior Strategic Adviser at Norton Rose Canada and served as Canadian Ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

* Fen Osler Hampson is Chancellor’s Professor and Director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

Foreign Affairs June 21, 2012

[www].foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-lost-canada

 

This was used a redicous amount of times on the Keystone XL aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harm: people who don't see the northern lights become depressed

: when people are depressed they kill themselves, others, or a combination of the two

Impact : extinction

 

plan: send people to Alaska to see the northern lights

 

adv. 1 people would be happier/ increase in production

 

adv2 tourism would increase the amount of tourist traps in alaska

 

adv3. oil companies would get proffit from fuel sold to transport people

 

solvency: people are happier when they see the northern lights

: happy people dont kill

 

 

what do you all think?

 

Your a genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

switching from regular gasoline to lng (liquid natrural gas) as the main feul for cars

 

1. Not infrastructure

2. You'd have to mandate LNG-compatible cars which is also untopical

3. LNG is hella open to a bunch of stuff about terrorism

4. LNG isn't readily available for everyone

5. LNG has the same DAs of Regular Gas-- we'd still have to import it, and it still has emissions.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not infrastructure

2. You'd have to mandate LNG-compatible cars which is also untopical

3. LNG is hella open to a bunch of stuff about terrorism

4. LNG isn't readily available for everyone

5. LNG has the same DAs of Regular Gas-- we'd still have to import it, and it still has emissions.

 

do your home work

 

1LNG is readily available shell provides LNG for most of Brazil and other South and Central American countries for over a decade ( no terrorist attack yet)

2 Yes it is readily available all you have to do is build infrastructure and supply Brazil proves

3 building infrastructure is the plan

4 Kansas has one of the largest if not, the biggest natural gas deposites in the world - no you would not have to import natural gas only refine it

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Obama Lost Canada: Botching relations with the United States' biggest trading partner

Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson

* Derek H Burney is Senior Strategic Adviser at Norton Rose Canada and served as Canadian Ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

* Fen Osler Hampson is Chancellor’s Professor and Director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

Foreign Affairs June 21, 2012

[www].foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-lost-canada

 

Interesting

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your home work

 

1LNG is readily available shell provides LNG for most of Brazil and other South and Central American countries for over a decade ( no terrorist attack yet)

2 Yes it is readily available all you have to do is build infrastructure and supply Brazil proves

3 building infrastructure is the plan

4 Kansas has one of the largest if not, the biggest natural gas deposites in the world - no you would not have to import natural gas only refine it

5. oops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're obviously not

 

I have this idea in the back of my head about how that typo mistake could be analyzed from a psychoanalytic perspective as a reflection of the commodification of individual identity, and conversely the identification of commodities with certain personality archetypes. I don't think I really believe it, when stated in that strong of a form, but it's kind of a fun idea to play with.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

 

Communications systems are probably an essential part of transportation, and there's probably some fantastic cases available in that area.

 

I haven't seen any of these, and they'd be way more topical than other mainstream affs like Keystone.

 

This is a reminder in case any of you are so pathetic that you haven't started your cases yet, or so awesome you're already considering writing another case for strategic reasons. Either way I think this idea holds water.

 

CROSS-X HAZX NE THOUGHTS ONDIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your home work

 

1LNG is readily available shell provides LNG for most of Brazil and other South and Central American countries for over a decade ( no terrorist attack yet)

2 Yes it is readily available all you have to do is build infrastructure and supply Brazil proves

3 building infrastructure is the plan

4 Kansas has one of the largest if not, the biggest natural gas deposites in the world - no you would not have to import natural gas only refine it

 

Honestly how can you even justify this as somewhat topical...? How is giving cars a new form of fuel like LNG infrastructure?

And what are the advantages of importing LNG over regular fuel? There aren't any except probably some shady oil dependence, econ, and warming advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...