Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Deleted

Round 513 [Space] Ethicofcriticaltheory (Aff) Vs. Crusso (Neg)

Recommended Posts

Aight here's cross-x.

1. What kind of technology is EOS?

2. What evidence do you read that Obama will use satellite data to gather information?

3. What's the timeframe for solvency on warming?

4. Your Werz evidence says Bengladesh has already experienced several disastrous floods. Why haven't we seen the impact?

5. What has India done to help us in Afghanistan, pressure Iran, or deter North Korea?

6. So is your water wars argument that Pakistan is going to run out of water and nuke India? What would that accomplish?

7. How does heg deescalate conflict?

8. How are we going to continue to deter China if they're economies rapidly getting to the rate of overtaking ours?

9. How do you solve your Thompson evidence?

10. Why is China attacking us?

11. Is heg the only way to deter those rising powers?

12. How are you going to pay for the plan and how much will it cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What kind of technology is EOS?

 

Earth Observation Systems have constantly updating technology, that is part of the inherent barrier to solving my advantages. In fiscal times we tend to focus on only sending up patch-work satellites as the rest of them fail (I.E., JPSS). For the purpose of your case-arguments, the generic term for this architecture is 'remote' sensing'.

 

2. What evidence do you read that Obama will use satellite data to gather information?

 

The last piece of Pathermore and Rogers evidence indicates the DOD would use the data, there are other agencies like the State Department's United States Aid for International Development, the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture Service, and both NASA and NOAA would be involved as well.

 

3. What's the timeframe for solvency on warming?

 

There are two points on this, warming in the short term is inevitable, so the case is important to mitigate the impacts associated with it (like migration), and the time frame for that is immediate. In the long term your disadvantages probably outweigh on time frame, the argument is that warming is the most likely cause of extinction unless something is done.

 

4. Your Werz evidence says Bangladesh has already experienced several disastrous floods. Why haven't we seen the impact?

 

It's a question of the scale of the link. It's linear, meaning that there are immediate harms of a smaller scale, our Werz and Conley evidence indicates that a larger migration pattern is becoming more likely which would trigger the full-scale of the impact.

 

5. What has India done to help us in Afghanistan, pressure Iran, or deter North Korea?

 

Empirically? Nothing. The argument is that as India develops it will put itself in a better position to hold the levers of international power. This is a uniquely strong ability as approximately a week ago when India became one of the only nations with ICBM capability.

 

6. So is your water wars argument that Pakistan is going to run out of water and nuke India? What would that accomplish?

 

Pakistan would use nuclear weapons against India if India posed a significant enough threat to destroy Pakistan's economy, this is because deep-seated tensions would not let the slight go unpunished, and there would be no deterrent effect unless the threat was real.

 

7. How does heg deescalate conflict?

 

It acts as a counter-balance to the hegemony of other states who would start conflict, multi-polarity would mean wars escalated before they could be contained.

 

8. How are we going to continue to deter China if they're economies rapidly getting to the rate of overtaking ours?

 

False premise. China is growing, but that trend isn't necessarily continuing, and they are not overtaking us.

 

9. How do you solve your Thompson evidence?

 

Updating our satellites would give the military the necessary information to effectively execute operations.

 

10. Why is China attacking us?

 

The scenario is specific to a Sino-Indian naval conflict. We would be able to contain it with hegemony.

 

11. Is heg the only way to deter those rising powers?

 

It is a way, make the argument for an alternative and I'll argue against it.

 

12. How are you going to pay for the plan and how much will it cost?

 

It's impossible to fully quantify it because it is a year to year plan, but I will defend a significant amount - the plan will be traded off with other space priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RPS

1. What's the warrant to why mitigation strategies fail without NASA?

2. How does mandating corporations use renewable energy resources link to spending?

3. Can you give me a specific outline of how the USfg will solve your Werz evidence post-aff?

 

Burke

1. Isn't trying to control the outcome of what happens to the refugee through policy action an example of ontological certainty?

2. How do you solve those irrational forms of conflict?

3. Can you explain how your second Dillon 98 evidence explains the argument you make on the perm?

4. Are my performative contradictions a reason to vote aff?

5. How does going condo not solve all your Burke contradiction arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RPS

1. What's the warrant to why mitigation strategies fail without NASA?

 

In the NAST evidence the warrant is that because NASA is uniquely positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of the numerous policies that are speculatively attempting to solve warming, incorporating the data from its satellites would be key to evaluating efficacy.

 

2. How does mandating corporations use renewable energy resources link to spending?

 

The NAST evidence says that in the case of warming's harm being exaggerated definitively proving that it is exaggerated stops us from pursuing strategies that cost money, which would be the case with the switch in infrastructure these companies would undergo to meet your standards.

 

3. Can you give me a specific outline of how the USFG will solve your Werz evidence post-aff?

 

I assume you mean Werz and Manlove. The argument they make is that we already have some inevitable warming that we can't mitigate in the short-term, which makes adaptation strategies necessary. That would be the data we use to solve the associated harms of warming like migration and glacial melt, which the CP can't stop from happening. In the long term environmental measures can stop the external harm of warming that is outlined in Hsu.

 

Burke

 

1. Isn't trying to control the outcome of what happens to the refugee through policy action an example of ontological certainty?

 

I think you misunderstand the argument I'm making. The refugee is politically abject, meaning that it is neither properly inside or outside of the state. This renders the refugee an impossible object, and our first piece of Dillon evidence indicates that this is the failure of the political subject to be political. Your alternative from Burke talks about replacing a politics of being with becoming, and this requires the ability for the subject to be political because identity is constantly disturbed by abjection. The certainty of the issue isn't present because the only thing certain is that without the plan refugees are abject.

 

2. How do you solve those irrational forms of conflict?

 

The arguments about hegemony apply here. You'll probably argue that the fact that I claim the ability to control means I link, but the final argument about how hegemony is a better alternative to liberalism in regards to this issue when it comes to maintaining a politics of becoming through conflict.

 

3. Can you explain how your second Dillon 98 evidence explains the argument you make on the perm?

 

The permutation argument allows for the benefits of the plan, but doesn't describe it from a global lens. It describes it from individual subjective positions which better allows for the politics of becoming. The part where the Dillon and 98 evidence directly applies to the permutation is that your Burke analysis doesn't make any coherent sense in the context of a world where the refugee exists, because the refugee challenges the notion of sovereignty that your argument is criticizing. Functionally, without the permutation, the ability to even articulate the idea of a community of people.

 

4. Are my performative contradictions a reason to vote aff?

 

On Burke, not independently, but they do mean terminal defense if you extend any other arguments that aren't Burke into the 2NR.

 

The contradiction coming out of Layne and Ikenberry means you reject both arguments, but that isn't an independent voting issue.

 

5. How does going condo not solve all your Burke contradiction arguments?

 

If I win the permutation I can extend the argument that I am an ontological pre-requisite to your other arguments that put an obligation on the state, even if you kick out of it, because I ran no defense about ontology not coming first. If you kick Burke the independent contradictions aren't voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK 2NC should be up tomorrow. I'm just going to post the block in one speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate cross-ex, and wasn't going to run condo bad, so I don't know why I asked that. Lol.

 

It's a good idea strategically to figure it out; can change your time allocation!

 

*butts out*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does conditionality mean that you can concede a flow that has nothing but offense run against it?

 

How is my delay permutation functionally different from "perm do both", and how is it intrinsic?

 

As a question of sequencing, does ontology come before utilitarian cost-benefit-analysis? Or is ontology an impact that is weighed alongside others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does conditionality mean that you can concede a flow that has nothing but offense run against it?

It means I can concede an advocacy if it has offense on it or not. There's nothing in this round that says the neg can't run multiple worlds. If I kick the CP or K, you can't get offense because the squo isn't doing the cp.

 

How is my delay permutation functionally different from "perm do both", and how is it intrinsic

It allows you to spike out of my net benefits by changing the timeframe of the aff, avoiding my uniqueness arguments.

As a question of sequencing, does ontology come before utilitarian cost-benefit-analysis? Or is ontology an impact that is weighed alongside others?

It comes before but that argument wasn't in the 2AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhhh could you cut down that 1AR? It's at 2800 words which is longer than a constructive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a mistake, that was the original draft before I cut it down, I can't find the shortened version. I'll have to redo it, but it'll be a few days.

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...