Jump to content
teleportmassive

Round 536: Teleportmassive (Aff) Vs. Firewater (Neg)

Recommended Posts

alright, we need some judges though- here's CX-

 

who's the agent of the plan?

what type of investment will the government use to enact the plan

How does the Government reducing congestion around domestic military bases create international cooperation to stop warming?

when will a disaster happen, or better yet how will the military be able to actually stop the impacts of a massive hurricane or flood from damaging the economy?

How long until global warming would actually happen?

Why would better training lead to more troop retention?

your TRB evidence talks about how the mass congestion is created by military families. How do you solve this?

where would you be building this new infrastructure?

where in your federal key evidence does it say that the government is vital for congestion- it's talking about ports and airports and talks about how the natural role for states are dependent on geography?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who's the agent of the plan?

We'll defend the DOD, it's what our first solvency card (from the TRB) suggests.

what type of investment will the government use to enact the plan

"Types of investment" typically encompass stocks and bonds and things - do you mean how we'll fund it? Is the question about spending, or topicality?

How does the Government reducing congestion around domestic military bases create international cooperation to stop warming?

Sure -- in the status quo congestion as a result of BRAC prevents adequate response and slows down both military and civilian responders as they attempt to get to the locations of disasters. Our cards talk about both domestic crises as well as international ones we can provide humanitarian aid with, but only if we're able to navigate roads at their maximum capacity.

when will a disaster happen, or better yet how will the military be able to actually stop the impacts of a massive hurricane or flood from damaging the economy?

Disasters are impossible to predict far in advance, which is one of the things which makes our timeframe most important. Of course we have monitors and things like that, but we'll argue that while international wars have their causes in buildup of tensions which we can attempt to address at multiple stages, the very nature of "natural" disasters is that they come and go completely independently of humans.

There's an important distinction on your next question -- we're not claiming the economy as an impact -- we think better ability to navigate roads will help groups like the Coast Guard as well as Red Cross rescue people, and that the additional lanes will crucial in allowing people to evacuate areas where disasters will strike.

How long until global warming would actually happen?

Couple of key dates: All the ice will be gone from the Arctic by 2030, although sea level rises and corresponding flooding is more linear; we're attempted to pass the 2 degree tipping point by 2035, but conditions up to that point will make war and every other standard of living worse (including increasing natural disasters, which, if unmitigated, will cause extinction); and species extinctions caused by warming will peak around 2055, assuming we're still alive at that time, and we can read cards on how those losses will independently cause extinction because of food chain dependancies and medicinal capacity.

Why would better training lead to more troop retention?

The argument is that better roads lead to more troop retention, and that retention is key to training. The first argument is explained in our second internal link evidence, that soldiers will quit and find other jobs if their commutes are too long due to status quo congestion. The second argument is a) that we have to have troops in the first place in order to train them, B) that they can learn better when their lives are less fragmented and harried from 4 hours of daily traffic, and c) we have to eliminate factors that might make them quit down the line in order to know that our investment in their training is worthwhile.

your TRB evidence talks about how the mass congestion is created by military families. How do you solve this?

By adding more roads they can travel on? I feel like you're trying to make an alt cause argument, but we're not even trying to address root causes of congestion -- building more infrastructure is literally the end of the bottleneck, so it captures all prior congestion and causes of congestion.

where would you be building this new infrastructure?

Around every military base effected by the Base Realignment and Closure Act in the United States. Our evidence suggests some locations like Fort Lee, Fort Eustis, and Fort Drum.

where in your federal key evidence does it say that the government is vital for congestion- it's talking about ports and airports and talks about how the natural role for states are dependent on geography?

The evidence specifically indicates highways as well as all of that, which is what we are; in general, however, the framing of the quotation you cite addresses "cooperation and coordination," which is crucial to congestion solvency. If a road runs through one state to the border and then an adjacent state attempts to continue it but with a different system, it's impossible to solve. Later on in the card, McDowell and Edner also indicate that states no longer know how to address urban congestion, because they haven't been doing it for the last 100 years.

The section on geographic responsibilities is merely contrasting issues within states with military jurisdiction -- obviously the army is national and managed by the federal government, not each individual state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Types of investment" typically encompass stocks and bonds and things - do you mean how we'll fund it? Is the question about spending, or topicality?

 

I guess my question is, how does the Federal Government fund the plan, is the investment in loans? grants? I mean how exactly is the government getting the money to actually develop the infrastructure.

 

"Around every military base effected by the Base Realignment and Closure Act in the United States. Our evidence suggests some locations like Fort Lee, Fort Eustis, and Fort Drum."

 

my next question is, where? I don't mean which bases, but what is the area like, are you improving current infrastructure or using new land for these changes?

 

Can people just quit out of the military?

 

Do we know how long a commute would have to take to get someone to quit a job?

 

By adding more roads they can travel on? I feel like you're trying to make an alt cause argument, but we're not even trying to address root causes of congestion -- building more infrastructure is literally the end of the bottleneck, so it captures all prior congestion and causes of congestion.

 

so if congestion is going to exist inevitably, how do you solve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my question is, how does the Federal Government fund the plan, is the investment in loans? grants? I mean how exactly is the government getting the money to actually develop the infrastructure.

Deficit spending is probably normal means.

my next question is, where? I don't mean which bases, but what is the area like, are you improving current infrastructure or using new land for these changes?

Yup, it's land which will be bought up and redeveloped -- our solvency evidence is based off entirely new roads, not repairs to existing ones.

Can people just quit out of the military?

People on the frontlines enlist for fixed periods of time, but they're deployed overseas anyway. Our evidence talks about personnel and civilian noncombat workers, who we'll argue keep all of the technology, administrative work, training procedures, planning, and more at certain level of readiness which is key to solve heg. With support systems, our power projection would be useless. The people who maintain these support systems can "just quit," and will, if the congestion continues.

Do we know how long a commute would have to take to get someone to quit a job?

We're not saying it's one particularly long instance of waiting that will make everyone irrationally throw up their hands and agree to be janitors at their neighborhood elementary schools instead of strategic planners. Systemic traffic times of status quo level, around 3-4 hours, are what will cause our impacts.

so if congestion is going to exist inevitably, how do you solve

I still don't really think you're understanding what I'm talking about. Congestion and the causes of congestion are linear, so using information about numerical increases of road users, more military families in more packed locations because of BRAC and things like this, we will respond with the corresponding increase of roads. Our whole argument is that congestion is not inevitable -- the definition of congestion is too many people in one lane; so regardless of why this is happening, more roads with more lanes spread the users out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge. I'll run anything it doesn't matter, just debate it well. Tell me what paradigm to default to. If not told, I'll automatically default to Policymaker. Although I do believe Offense is important, i do believe defensive arguments are enough to topple an advantage. I like T debates and Theory debates, but if done bad they're terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any cross-x questions (unless anything isn't condo, in which case you should say so), but working on the 2AC has become a bit chaotic. I'll try to finish as soon as possible.

 

Rawrcat looks like a good judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge

T: I'm rather flexible, either competing interps or reasonability, if you want a vote on t, it has to be either the full 1nr or 2nc

DA: I will vote on disads, I love them, especially ptx

CP: I will vote on cps with net benefits and I'm rather flexible on anything on CPs, whether it's theory or not

Theory: I love theory except there needs to be impact calculus on why your reasons are better

Ks: I'm not really good with k literature, I usually tend to be flexible with whatever framework you're running

(I think the generic policymaking fw is lame; run a better one)

I will vote on ks as long as there's an overview explaining what the k means, implies and why does it matter in the context of this round

I like alt solvency args on ks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge. I'm okay with anything. Not well versed in kritikal literature, so please give a good overview. Don't have a real paradigm, I guess I'd say I try to keep tab. I love Theory/Topicality: give me an abuse story, but potential abuse is fine as long as you can argue it (default competing interps). I love impact turns.

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...