Jump to content
TheOdyssey

Best Camp Affs

Recommended Posts

I think that there are some affs that are much better than others due to the subject of the aff, but i also think that some of the camps are capable of producing better or worse files. Personally i like the kritikal terror watchlist put out by Umich (?) or Northwestern :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Invite Mexico to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with the EU. Really great advantages that are available outside of the camp file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Invite Mexico to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with the EU. Really great advantages that are available outside of the camp file.

I beat this aff in the doubles of the SDI tournament and I'd have to disagree, really heavily. The internal link chain for the advantages I saw were abysmal, and the argument that inviting mexico somehow makes the measure pass is absurd- sure there's solvency advocates, but Hardy said we won the case debate because there were just structural factors that proved even inviting mexico wouldn't change the fact that it won't pass- because the aff only fiats inviting mexico to the table. Really easy way to set up link alone turns case on politics... 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat this aff in the doubles of the SDI tournament and I'd have to disagree, really heavily. The internal link chain for the advantages I saw were abysmal, and the argument that inviting mexico somehow makes the measure pass is absurd- sure there's solvency advocates, but Hardy said we won the case debate because there were just structural factors that proved even inviting mexico wouldn't change the fact that it won't pass- because the aff only fiats inviting mexico to the table. Really easy way to set up link alone turns case on politics... 

I agree with that. The Meacham card is the closest that the aff comes to "Mexico key to the entire thing's effectiveness" argument. Even with evidence, it's still a sketchy argument, and it doesn't look like the economic engagement in toward Mexico, but rather with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still, just out of curiosity, what advantages sounded good that arent in the file? 

I found a couple ideas, but have only cut one. 

 

 

The first new advantage is BRICS power. TTIP maintains Transatlantic control of the global economic system, which doesn't allow the BRICS to gain power. BRICS are bad because 1. offset US heg, 2. allows middle east proliferation, 3. destroys WTO credibility, etc. Surprisingly, there's a lot of literature on how TTIP would effect the BRICS. Here's one card I cut: 

 

The BRICs power is growing and will surpass the EU-US partnership by 2020—TTIP is critical to keep the BRICs in EU and US control.

Doody 13 (Justine, researcher at the Global Economic Dynamics project, “Shutting Out the BRICs? Why the EU Focuses on a Transatlantic Free Trade Area,†http://www.ged-project.de/viz/articles/shutting-out-the-brics-why-the-eu-focuses-on-a-transatlantic-free-trade-area/, Accessed 8/11/13, Keerthi)

In March 2013, the European Union and the United States of America launched negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The free trade agreement between the two would be the largest trade deal in history. It should provide the EU with a boost of 0.5% in GDP growth. At the same time, the US is pursuing a free trade agreement in the Pacific. This Trans-Pacific Partnership would include the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. From both these agreements, one bloc is conspicuously missing. Where are the countries that have been such an important part of the global economic narrative for more than ten years now – where are the BRICs?¶ The Bertelsmann Foundation’s Global Economic Dynamics Visualizer tool (GED Viz) offers a way of viewing trade flows year-on-year between different countries and blocs. Slides 1 and 2 show that the EU’s trade relationship with the BRIC countries is increasing in importance for Europe. The total value of exports from the EU to the powerhouse economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China rose from $80.6 billion in 2001 to $432.57 billion in 2011. [1] When the figures are viewed as a percentage of total EU trade, the growing weight of the relationship becomes even more clear. EU exports to the BRIC countries formed 14% of total EU exports in 2001. In 2011, exports to the BRICs made up 29.7% of all goods exported from the EU-27 – an average increase in share of EU exports of 1.5% a year.¶ Meanwhile, even as the value of EU exports to the US grows, the share of total EU exports sent to the US declines. Slides 3 and 4 show that in 2001, EU exports to the US were worth $233.8 billion, and by 2011, exports totalled $374.6 billion. But the percentage of total EU exports sent to the US dropped from 40.6% in 2001 to 25.8% in 2011 – an average drop in share of 1.5% a year, precisely matching the rise in importance of exports to the BRIC countries.¶ Even so, the EU is choosing to close ranks with the US, tightening its trade relationship and bolstering the already close integration between the trade regimes of the two sides. Part of the reason lies in the other side of the EU’s trade relationship with the BRIC countries: imports from the BRIC countries to the EU are increasing even more quickly than exports. Having another look at slides 1 and 2, one can see that EU imports from the BRIC countries were worth $157.94 billion in 2001, and by 2011, they amounted to $812.44 billion. In 2001, imports from the BRICs represented 25.1% of the EU’s total imports; by 2011, the BRICs were responsible for 47.3% of the EU-27’s imports, an average growth in share of 2.2% a year.¶ Throughout the period, the EU’s trade deficit has held steady – imports from the BRIC countries continue to increase alongside exports. The EU has long had serious concerns about the trade deficit with China in particular, blaming Chinese currency manipulation and trading practices for the gap. But the EU is running a trade deficit with the rest of the BRIC countries too. Slide 5 shows that in 2011, EU exports to China totalled $209.97 billion, while imports from China were $445.2 billion. The EU-27 exported $46.32 billion worth of goods to Brazil and imported goods with a value of $55.36 billion. Exports to India were worth $53.23 billion and imports totalled $58.89 billion. And exports to Russia amounted to $123.05 billion, with imports more than double that, at $252.99 billion.¶ So, the EU is turning to its trade relationship with the US to increase its competitiveness. In this relationship, trade flows are only part of the story: investment between the EU and the US is far greater than either party’s investment in the BRIC countries.[2] With companies from either side active in both jurisdictions, strengthened links could promote investment and improve job growth both in the US and in the EU. And aligning regulations and norms would lessen costs for companies on both sides of the Atlantic.¶ Aside from the benefits of cooperation, the closer EU-US partnership is certainly also intended to shut out the BRIC countries. According to the UNDP, Brazil, China and India’s combined output will by 2020 be greater than the combined GDP of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany and Italy. [3] The renminbi’s increasing internationalisation threatens the power of the dollar and the euro, and south-south trade is growing. By 2030, 70% of the world’s consumption expenditure will come from the global south. [4] This represents an opportunity for the developed economies, in that new markets will be available to their industries. But with intra-BRIC trade on the rise, companies from these emerging markets are often better prepared to sell at low cost to consumers with limited incomes.¶ At the same time, the increased economic weight of China in particular argues for its greater inclusion in global economic decision-making. The TTIP represents a way for the EU and the US to forestall this eventuality for a little while longer. As the Doha round of WTO trade talks continues to struggle, a bilateral agreement between the two huge economies would enable the EU and the US to lay down rules much more easily than they could within the WTO framework, in which the BRIC countries have the power to block initiatives. On issues such as intellectual property and employment protection, the EU and the US have much more in common with each other than they do with the emerging economies. By agreeing standards together, they can establish norms that the BRIC countries may later be forced to accept.

 

The second main idea was one that was surprisingly lacking from the aff file, which is just regular free trade: 

 

TTIP would be the pinnacle of free trade- it’s the largest agreement ever, is key to the global economy, prevents protectionism, and integrates most major economic powers- the plan is key.

Boskin 13 (Michael J., professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, 7/24/13, “Trans-Atlantic trade gets set to go global,†http://www.praguepost.com/opinion/16810-trans-atlantic-trade-gets-set-to-go-global.html, Accessed 8/11/13, Keerthi)

Negotiations have now commenced between the United States and the European Union on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), potentially the largest regional free-trade agreement in history. If successful, it would cover more than 40 percent of global GDP and account for large shares of world trade and foreign direct investment. The United States and EU have set an ambitious goal of completing negotiations by the end of 2014. Historically, however, most trade agreements have taken much longer to complete.¶ The scale of the TTIP is enormous. With Croatia's accession at the beginning of July, the EU now consists of 28 member states, each of which has its own particular set of special interests pressing for trade promotion or protection, based on comparative advantage, history and raw domestic political power.¶ Moreover, the desired scope of the agreement is vast, complicating the process further. The TTIP would eliminate all trade tariffs and reduce nontariff barriers, including in agriculture, expand market access in services trade, bring about closer regulatory harmonization, strengthen intellectual-property protection, restrict subsidies to state-owned enterprises and more. This all but guarantees difficult talks ahead.¶ Expanding trade boosts income, on average, in all the countries involved. Economists estimate that global free trade, enabled by many successful rounds of multilateral talks, has boosted worldwide income substantially.¶ Regional free-trade agreements (FTAs), such as the TTIP, do so as well, but some of the gains may come at the expense of other trade partners. Within each country, despite net gains, there are also some losers. The best way to deal with the economic, political and humanitarian concerns raised by trade agreements is via transition rules, temporary income support and retraining, as opposed to maintaining protectionist barriers.¶ The gains from such pacts stem from a variety of factors, the most important of which is comparative advantage: Countries specialize in producing the goods and services that they are relatively most efficient at producing and trade these goods and services for others. Economies of scale and other factors are also important.¶ As the scope of trade liberalization shrinks, so do the benefits - more than proportionally. Estimates of the annual gains from a fully realized TTIP are $160 billion for the EU and $128 billion for the United States. UK Prime Minister David Cameron predicts 2 million new jobs. And a noninflationary boost to growth in a weak global economy would be particularly timely.¶ But the devil is in the details. Tariffs are generally modest already, so gains from their further reduction would be modest, as well. It is vital to remove nontariff barriers, such as localized rules and restrictions not based on scientifically legitimate safety or health concerns, despite political pressure to maintain or tighten them. Limiting the scope of trade and investment covered by the TTIP would likewise reduce the benefits.¶ The TTIP is being divided into 15 specific working groups. While the negotiations are new, the issues separating the two sides are long-standing and widely known. One of the most difficult is the EU's limitation of imports of genetically modified foods, which presents a major problem for U.S. agriculture. Another is financial regulation, with U.S. banks preferring EU rules to the more stringent framework emerging at home (such as the much higher capital standards for large banks recently proposed by America's financial regulators).¶ Several other serious disagreements also stand in the way of a comprehensive deal. For example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have stronger intellectual-property protection at home than in the EU. Entertainment will become increasingly contentious with online distribution of films. And the anachronistic 1920 Jones Act requires cargo carried between U.S. ports to be shipped only on American ships (recall the confusion about the possibility of foreign ships coming to help during the BP Gulf oil spill). Safety regulations and restrictions on foreign control of companies in sensitive industries are further points of contention.¶ The TTIP is not just about the United States and the EU. Mexico already has an FTA with the EU, and Canada is negotiating one. At some point, NAFTA and TTIP will need to be harmonized.

Now is key for TTIP. It would harmonize with other economic institutions, benefits are feasible, and NAFTA incorporation is necessary- empirically proven.

Straus 13 (Ira, U.S. Coordinator, Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO; and Fulbright Professor of International Relations in Moscow, 7/31/13, “TTIP: Not Like Any Other Regional Free Trade Agreement,†http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-not-like-any-other-regional-free-trade-agreement, Accessed 8/11/13, Keerthi, acronyms: OECD- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, NAFTA- North American Free Trade Agreement, ANZ-Australia-New Zealand FTA, OSCE- Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, WTO- World Trade Organization, GATT- General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)

TTIP offers more geopolitical hopes -- for stabilizing the world order and gradually, peacefully assimilating China and others into it -- than dangers. ¶ We should try to consummate an agreement rapidly, (a) before new economic crises can bring another global economic downturn that could sink both intra-EU and trans-Atlantic ties in the gloom and nationalism; and (B) while Obama is in office, as he will have greater ease than a Republican in getting it ratified over the objections to trade and to Atlanticism from much of his base. ¶ Speed being of the essence, it is less important for the agreement to be complete than for it to leave space for further development. There can always be another round, as in WTO. Harmonization is being discussed of TTIP with other trade spaces. This should focus first on the rest of the extended Atlantic or OECD space, through harmonization with the co-emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and NAFTA. Since the US and EU already have special trade and security arrangements with Japan, S. Korea, ANZ, Canada, and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, this is both necessary and readily feasible. ¶ With time, TTIP and TPP should be linked or merged into a globe-spanning economic space, serviced institutionally by OECD and G7-8. ¶ Subsequent enlargement could bring in other regions, starting with the rest of the extended European space that is in OSCE; with the understanding that, in order not to undermine what has been achieved, they will need to arrive at a sufficient degree of sociological and political interoperability, not just shared trading interests. ¶ Since the entire world is modernizing, eventually this is likely to mean it will encompass the entire world. Until then, the integrated grouping will remain one of the ever-present two tiers of the international trading system, the other being WTO; akin to stalactites and stalagmites which eventually meet and merge. This is nothing new; the Atlantic was the core of GATT from the start, providing impetus and stability to the global trading system. The overhasty extension of GATT in recent decades to insufficiently integrable countries is one of the reasons why the inner grouping must now re-form itself as a concrete entity.

 

Other ideas I have are:

- Digital Trade and IP Protection

- GMO regulation

- TPP Integration (Basically TTIP allows the success of TPP, which is good bc [insert Asia impact])

- Canada Economy

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a couple ideas, but have only cut one. 

 

-snip-

 

Other ideas I have are:

- Digital Trade and IP Protection

- GMO regulation

- TPP Integration (Basically TTIP allows the success of TPP, which is good bc [insert Asia impact])

- Canada Economy

 A Neolib link on a silver platter, an imperialism link, and a security link to boot...oh right, them judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Neolib link on a silver platter, an imperialism link, and a security link to boot...oh right, them judges.

I judge aff quality on the quality of evidence, validity of the internal link chains, and diverse advantages. Not running an aff because it links to Ks is like not eating an apple because it has calories.
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internal links are terrible and there's no diversity in them either

For the overall selection of camp affs or the TTIP aff I suggested?

 

As for internal links being terrible, I don't really agree that much. I understand there's a leap from "invite Mexico" to "resolves issues with the TTIP", but the evidence exists and makes great warrants as to why Mexico is vital to the entire deal's effectiveness. Other than that, the internal links are superb in terms of TTIP's effectiveness. There are amazing cards that state warranted reasons why TTIP is vital to global trade, TPP effectiveness, offsetting the BRICS, improving the economy, improving US-EU relations, etc. 

 

As for diversity- that's above. Even if the camp aff that you saw didn't have a lot of diversity (I agree the camp file was stale), there's a lot you can do with the affirmative in terms of advantages. I listed some and posted some evidence for new ideas above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A Neolib link on a silver platter, an imperialism link, and a security link to boot...oh right, them judges.

WHAT!?!?! An aff links to neolib!?!? fuck its game over! Throw that one out. NEXTTTTTT!

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT!?!?! An aff links to neolib!?!? fuck its game over! Throw that one out. NEXTTTTTT!

 

Hmm next is... Malthus aff! Does that link to Ks? NAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the camp affs, I've seen some pretty cool stuff. My main issue is that it's hard to prove that any aff is truly topical this time around. At least with the TI topic, no self respecting team would run T on the core of the topic (I have yet to see a team win on running T on HSR), but you can easily run T on Lifting the Cuban Embargo (Doesn't actually increase economic engagement, just makes it possible for that to happen), which is arguable the core of the topic much like HSR was.

 

I think the best camp affs are those that do a good job of giving the aff the tools they need to easily win the topicality debate. For example, the Transboundry Hydrocarbons Agreement Mexcio aff, which I was forced to run at camp is easy to win the topicality on. I might not like it for other reasons, but if nothing else, You shouldn't have to deal with too much in the way of T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the camp affs, I've seen some pretty cool stuff. My main issue is that it's hard to prove that any aff is truly topical this time around. At least with the TI topic, no self respecting team would run T on the core of the topic (I have yet to see a team win on running T on HSR), but you can easily run T on Lifting the Cuban Embargo (Doesn't actually increase economic engagement, just makes it possible for that to happen), which is arguable the core of the topic much like HSR was.

 

I think the best camp affs are those that do a good job of giving the aff the tools they need to easily win the topicality debate. For example, the Transboundry Hydrocarbons Agreement Mexcio aff, which I was forced to run at camp is easy to win the topicality on. I might not like it for other reasons, but if nothing else, You shouldn't have to deal with too much in the way of T.

i went ham on HSR with T last year. That was my winning strat each round. idk what topic you were debating...

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i went ham on HSR with T last year. That was my winning strat each round. idk what topic you were debating...

 

Just how is HSR not Topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how is HSR not Topical?

T- Substantial is 99%. HSR is 98%

 

 

Forreal though, the one T violation I saw against HSR was T-Vehicles, which was essentially that they build the trains themselves which are vehicles which is bad for limits.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the camp affs, I've seen some pretty cool stuff. My main issue is that it's hard to prove that any aff is truly topical this time around. At least with the TI topic, no self respecting team would run T on the core of the topic (I have yet to see a team win on running T on HSR), but you can easily run T on Lifting the Cuban Embargo (Doesn't actually increase economic engagement, just makes it possible for that to happen), which is arguable the core of the topic much like HSR was.

 

I think the best camp affs are those that do a good job of giving the aff the tools they need to easily win the topicality debate. For example, the Transboundry Hydrocarbons Agreement Mexcio aff, which I was forced to run at camp is easy to win the topicality on. I might not like it for other reasons, but if nothing else, You shouldn't have to deal with too much in the way of T.

Actually just no. There is SO MUCH literature out there about this. The act of removing the embargo is economic engagement. Along with removing high tariffs and restrictions. This argument is actually so asinine.

 

In other news, no affs are topical. The ballot merely allows the action to occur later. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSR advantages were based off of the vehicles, not the system itself

T is about the plantext in a vacuum. There's no such thing as non-topical advantages.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I have yet to see a team win on running T on HSR)

One of our teams won a tournament going for T Vehicles against HSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT!?!?! An aff links to neolib!?!? fuck its game over! Throw that one out. NEXTTTTTT!

My point

--------------------------

Your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...