Jump to content
Derpderp

Port Security - De Rugy Answers

Recommended Posts

For anyone running the port security aff, where did you guys cut answers to the de Rugy neg evidence? Specifically I'm trying to find take outs to the Portwide Risk Mitigation and Management Counterplan... not finding much lit :\ Any tips on where to look would be much appreciated

 

Thanks

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be helpful, but I don't run port security, - De Rugy is part of the Mercatus Center.

 

Mercatus Center is heavily tied to Koch Industries; funding, founding, and staffing

 

Greenpeace 10

“Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group Mercatus Center†Greenpeace 2010 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/mercatus-center/

$9,847,500 received from Koch foundations 2005-2010 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2010: $10,474,500]¶ The Mercatus Center is a conservative think-tank at George Mason University, in which Charles Koch sits on the Board of Directors. The Mercatus Center was previously known as the Center for the Study of Free Market Processes and was founded--with an initial grant from Charles Koch--by Richard Fink, now a Koch Industries executive vice president. Fink is also president of the Charles G. Koch and Claude R. Lambe foundations, which fund both the Mercatus Center (see table below).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems like it could be a pretty interesting argument--I'm not sure without further implication what this is saying or what the implication/impact is.

 

And Nathan is just trying to help out.

 

I don't see how this specific argument ties to the overall impact or credibility debate. The counter-plan is libertarian & conservative. Thats not a reason to reject evidence or even to prefer evidence over other evidence. And all evidence is bought and paid for by someone (whether its advertisers in the case of mass media, the publishing industry, consumers, or public policy research): government, left wing, right wing, etc...Everyone has an agenda.

 

I think this can be an argument--or this is a link to an argument--but I think the debater has to do some serious analytical work OR read an impact card of some sort.

 

1. Perhaps something about how their funding results in specific types of bias in results/reporting.

2. Its also possible that the **degree** of the bias, versus just the pressence of bias here.

3. libertarian research/public policy = bad (something ethical). not sure if this exists...

 

Remember: I think you can make the implication analytical and it can be multiple implications....I just think there has to be one.

 

Also, I just did a search for the CP. Northwesterns version quotes:

• deRugby

• American Progress

• GAO

 

American Progress is the opposite of deRugby (ie Progressive) and I think the GAO isn't particularly biased when you compare plan versus counterplan to my knowledge.

 

Isn't it a topical counterplan? Could you run it as your aff?

 

Not sure how that changes things in terms of your case debate.

 

Plus you still may be able to read this evidence--and still read some of your existing evidence. Perhaps (esp. given thats kind of what they are doing with the counterplan anyway--I would assume).

 

Go get the Northwestern & other neg. files for this counterplan. Read the original article. This will help unpack and make clear what exactly the plan would do--so you can make contrasts to what your aff does. This will allow you to leverage your 1ac cards better--probably.

 

If this has something to do with privates, fees, or insurance--the Northwestern file did have some answers to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the net benefit? It's either the status quo and doesn't solve the case or it's an increase in funding and links to politics, spending, etc.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...