Jump to content
lolwut5

lolwut5 (aff) vs TamaleTosser (neg)

Recommended Posts

Inherency

 

1) This is just out of curiosity- where is this card from? The cite states "https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/marriott/1444bb9253e89e66"? 

 

Oil

 

2) Do you have any evidence hinting at the fact that there is risk of an oil spill?

3) How come a spill hasnt happened yet? 

4) What does America specifically do/have which makes us key in preventing spills? 

5) What animals does cuba specifically conserve that makes it a bio-d hotspot?  

6) What is the "threshold" that Craig talks about? When will we cross it? 

7) Timeframe on the impact

 

Relations

 

8) How does oil partnerships with Cuba lead to more "ties with Venezuela, China and Brazil"? 

9) What are the credentials to the BostonGlobe card? Its from an opinion based editorial page. 
10) Can you explain the China scenario to me once more please?  

11) The Lowther 13 tag says no defense on the Taiwan Impact, how come? 

12) Also can you reexplain the terror scenario? I really dont get how the Easterbrook 1 card fits in here

 

Solvency/General 

 

13) What is your plan actually doing?

14) Is the government working with Cuba or US firms?

15) If OFAC/the president already have the ability to license, why is the US needed?

16) How are you topical? 

 

May have some follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry this took so long... my brain is not functioning tonight

Inherency

 

1) This is just out of curiosity- where is this card from? The cite states "https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/marriott/1444bb9253e89e66"? 

 

Sorry about that. Remnant of bad cite. The article was published in the tampa bay times. It can be accessed at http://tbo.com/news/politics/new-oil-spill-pact-between-us-cuba-has-tampa-roots-20140129/ and at multiple sites by searching for the title. 

 

2. 

 

Oil

 

2) Do you have any evidence hinting at the fact that there is risk of an oil spill?

 

our Gibson evidence which cites Fmr. Gov. Bob Graham, indicates that there is a high risk of a spill because the Cubans are attempting deepwater offshore drilling (10-12000 ft deep) which is a uniquely risky venture... understand that you have to situate this in that while spills in the status quo are rare, the risk increases exponentially when you attempt to drill so deep (and the Cubans have little experience, a lack of proper tech, their hand is forced to drill for oil).

 

3) How come a spill hasnt happened yet? 

 

our evidence assumes it will happen in the near future b/c cuba and other nations (russia) are aggressively pursuing these exploratory drilling opportunities in the status quo, and b/c these are so risky, a spill is inevitable. however, at the moment, we've been lucky enough for it not to occur yet. *thank the lord almighty*

 

4) What does America specifically do/have which makes us key in preventing spills? 

Good question. Multiple things 1. Semisubmersible rigs aren't allow to have more than 10% US parts, prevents us from giving them replacements which means it would take much longer for them to repair rigs. 2. The coast guard would be barred from deploying manpower, booms, skimming equipment, vessels and dispersants in the result of a spill. 3. US offshore oil/gas companies would be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, other tech. cuba has none of these. that's why the US is key.  

5) What animals does cuba specifically conserve that makes it a bio-d hotspot?  

This list would be very long... note our machlis 12 ev and rosas 12 ev. basically cuban reefs are shelters for species extinct in other reefs around the globe, and cuban reef research is key to saving those reefs. i guess bluefin tuna are a 'specific' animal, but our evidence indicates these reefs are an anomaly that are key in general for biodiversity. 

6) What is the "threshold" that Craig talks about? When will we cross it? 

When a deleterious spill of the kind our other evidence talks about occurs. 

7) Timeframe on the impact

None of our evidence goes out and says "spill in 1 year at this specific date" b/c no one would ever take them credibly, but common sense dictates if Cuba is doing this risky drilling than when they begin in 2015 (gibson 1/21), there will likely be a spill. that's in like a year. 

Relations

 

8) How does oil partnerships with Cuba lead to more "ties with Venezuela, China and Brazil"? 

that's not what it says, it says in the status quo, cuba's energy security partnerships provide cuba with a buffer that lessens the leverage the US has in cuban affairs. that's important b/c without action now cuba and china are going to crowd out the US causing China to gain leverage over the US and resolve the longstanding Taiwan dispute. 

9) What are the credentials to the BostonGlobe card? Its from an opinion based editorial page. 

as you may/may not know, the editorials page of a newspaper is where the journalists submit their *opinions* on the news... I think it's credentials enough that a well respected news organization staffed with professional journalists (the Boston Globe) is willing to publish a piece saying that status quo Cuba policy is not working... obviously an organization like that is not going out on a limb to publish whatever bs they can find.
10) Can you explain the China scenario to me once more please?

two scenarios. 1. taiwan crisis escalates between the US, Taiwan and China, nukes are launched. 

2. taiwan crisis escalates, no nukes launched, us china relations tank, us hegemony tanks, hezbollah uses this opportunity to strike with nukes and perhaps other terrorists 

11) The Lowther 13 tag says no defense on the Taiwan Impact, how come? 

the card says basically traditional de escalation policies aren't gonna work b/c of long standing distrust, diverging military capabilities, China's legitimacy is at stake, and US has pledged to help defend Taiwan

12) Also can you reexplain the terror scenario? I really dont get how the Easterbrook 1 card fits in here

Lol well the Easterbrook card is coming from a respected defense analyst who is stating that when terrorists (in this case Hezbollah) strike the US will go insane, lashing out vengeance upon Muslim targets in response. Basically a permanent US latin america relationship collapse is coming, this will make US LA cooperation on security issues (spec. preventing terrorist proliferation) effectively nullified, leaving an opportunity for Hezbollah to strike the United States.

Solvency/General 

 

13) What is your plan actually doing? Lifting the embargo on Oil/Hydrocarbon development with Cuba, then having the USFG license US companies to go in and get the oil 

14) Is the government working with Cuba or US firms? define working with. we are removing the barriers to...

15) If OFAC/the president already have the ability to license, why is the US needed? because the embargo is in the way... :P

16) How are you topical? because we meet a reasonable interp of the resolution... I can't give you any more than that without a more specific question.

 

May have some follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge this. PM me when round is over 

 

I'm pretty tab, BUT a few things

- I don't give speaker points, it's stupid in a typed debate. 

-I hate topical CP's, hell, I'm not a huge fan of advantage CP's either unless your "it avoids politics guise" link is DAMN good. Mutual exclusivity is always the gold standard with the CP. 

- Theory debates are always fun, I tend to hate international fiat, I'm neutral on most other issues. 

- This aff is probably topical so don't run T pls. 

- I love the K, I also love the methods to beat the K. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on a K because of theory like "utopian fiat bad", but I'm also willing to pull the trigger on an aff because I tend to buy the impact of discourse over the bullshit fat impact we keep reading.

- K Lit I love in particular (WITH SPECIFIC LINKS): Psychoanalysis (Zizek, Lacan), DnG/Schizoanalysis, Security/Threat Con/Apoc Rhetoric, Kritikal Race Theory, Queer Theory,  K lit I don't love: Baudrillard, Schmitt (I won't vote for neocons/nazi's with the exception of Heidegger), PIK's 

- Probability over magnitude in impact calculus (THIS IS WHY I LOVE THE K AND HATE UR NUCLEAR WAR DIP CAP DA).

- I don't like politics much BUT the shitty neg ground on this topic means that one has to run them if they want a DA that links. Make sure to at least pretend that your link card warrants "PC key" and "Bipartisanship key" to make me buy the link story. Specific links are super nice too. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarification: the Terror scenario is isolated from the US China Taiwan War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- K Lit I love in particular (WITH SPECIFIC LINKS): Psychoanalysis (Zizek, Lacan), DnG/Schizoanalysis, Security/Threat Con/Apoc Rhetoric, Kritikal Race Theory, Queer Theory,  K lit I don't love: Baudrillard, Schmitt (I won't vote for neocons/nazi's with the exception of Heidegger), PIK's 

 

I dislike this rather anti-tab part of your paradigm, but aside from this, I find it necessary to point out Schmitt was far from a neocon.  In fact, he basically critiques liberalism because it justifies things like neoconservatism.  e.g., invading other countries to have a worldwide homogeneous identity, violent annihilation (as opposed to just exclusion) of those not worth of the tag "other."

 

also Heidegger was just as much a Nazi, just because he was a postmodernist doesn't instantly make him acceptable as source as opposed to scmitt.  In fact, it seems that Heidegger's philosophy  was even more tainted by anti-semitism.

 

But most people  see Schmitt as espousing a non-radically left position and instantly classify his lit as unnaceptable

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike this rather anti-tab part of your paradigm, but aside from this, I find it necessary to point out Schmitt was far from a neocon.  In fact, he basically critiques liberalism because it justifies things like neoconservatism.  e.g., invading other countries to have a worldwide homogeneous identity, violent annihilation (as opposed to just exclusion) of those not worth of the tag "other."

 

also Heidegger was just as much a Nazi, just because he was a postmodernist doesn't instantly make him acceptable as source as opposed to scmitt.  In fact, it seems that Heidegger's philosophy  was even more tainted by anti-semitism.

 

But most people  see Schmitt as espousing a non-radically left position and instantly classify his lit as unnaceptable

I mostly agree with this. While Schmitt's personal politics are problematic (to say the least), I believe (and I don't know that much about Schmitt--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that some form of exclusion is needed to create communities--essentially, the only way that people can define themselves is against other people, and he does this in the creation of groups of 'friends' and 'enemies.' However, these groups are not defined necessarily by racial or political characteristics. 

From SEP-

"The political distinction between friend and enemy is not reducible to these other distinctions or, for that matter, to any particular distinction — be it linguistic, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. — that may become a marker of collective identity and difference"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike this rather anti-tab part of your paradigm, but aside from this, I find it necessary to point out Schmitt was far from a neocon.  In fact, he basically critiques liberalism because it justifies things like neoconservatism.  e.g., invading other countries to have a worldwide homogeneous identity, violent annihilation (as opposed to just exclusion) of those not worth of the tag "other."

 

also Heidegger was just as much a Nazi, just because he was a postmodernist doesn't instantly make him acceptable as source as opposed to scmitt.  In fact, it seems that Heidegger's philosophy  was even more tainted by anti-semitism.

 

But most people  see Schmitt as espousing a non-radically left position and instantly classify his lit as unnaceptable

 

not-a-single-fuck-was-given-that-day-wat

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at "Derian 2003"

 

His name is James Der Derian, and his last name is "Der Derian". Like John Von Trapp's last name would be "Von Trapp".

lol, I did not know that. Ive never read that card in a real debate before, so I guess I'll fix that. Rookie mistake, the more you know, I guess? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, I did not know that. Ive never read that card in a real debate before, so I guess I'll fix that. Rookie mistake, the more you know, I guess? 

oui oui

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2ac ready when this is done. 1nc cross examination :D reserve the right for 1 round of follow up questions.

General

I. Are your arguments vacuous? What's your warrant for that?

II. Is cleanliness good? A yes/no will suffice.

Pink Tide DA

1. Why can Cuba can step in and fill the place of Venezuela in the 'Pink Tide' movement if Venezuela's GDP is 6 times bigger than Cubas? 

2. If Chavez wanted to hurt US regional influence, why does the plan not reverse that trend? Why does cooperating with Cuba on oil give them *more* leverage against the US?

3. Timeframe on impact?

4. Your Gottemoeller ‘8 evidence talks exclusively about how the potential for US-Russia miscalc is heightened by the presidential transitions in both countries. That was in 2008. While both countries have stable executives, how is the evidence still applicable in 2014?

5. I really don't understand the link argument you are making with your Sadowski 11 evidence--whose resolve is reversed?

Saudi Oil DA

1. Y'all talk about how perception of US security support is key to prevent Saudi from getting the bomb. How can we measure perception and changes in perception? Because people perceive things differently, is that therefore non-falsifiable?

2. Does your Padgett 8 evidence which states "the only people really able to do it to the extent the Cubans need are the Americans" mean that only the US can develop Cuban oil? If not, what is the warrant?

3. If America were to keep buying the same amount of Saudi oil, yet all the newspapers claimed that America was diversifying its supply, would that *perception* trigger your prolif impact *despite* the fact America was buying the same amount of Saudi Oil?

4. Y'all say that SA doesn't have the bomb in the Squo, and that unlocking Cuban oil causes SA to get scared and proliferate, but why is *cuban* oil special? Hasn't America unlocked large amounts of shale gas and reduced its oil imports?

5. Why isn't Middle Eastern proliferation key to putting everyone on a level playing ground and causing deterrence?

6. Timeframe on impact?

China Oil DA

1. Isn't your Gibson evidence (4/14/13) that talks about how technical hurdles are preventing drilling postdated by our own Gibson evidence(1/21/14) which says the opposite?

2. Your Garcia card is tagged as "2007 proves increase in Cuban oil production would lead to lower oil prices" yet in the card itself the year 2003 is highlighted. Why is that?

3. Y'all Rattia 12 evidence is highlighted as “… there is consensus that causality in this relationship (referring to monetary policy and oil prices) run from the event of oil market to monetary policy" yet what is not highlighted and comes immediately after said highlighted sentence is: "as well of shifts of monetary policy to the supply of oil and demand of oil in global marketsâ€, we believe that a credible hypothesis is the argument that China’s expansive money supply is in part responsible for higher oil prices." Given the sentence immediately after what you highlighted, is the claim that oil market prices leading to liquid money policy reverse causal? Why not, given that your evidence concludes it is?

4. What is the brink for economic collapse? Your Parker 13 and Mead 9 evidence do not specify a specific amount of GDP contraction?

5. Timeframe on impact?

Case--Environment

1. Isn't your Sun Sentinel 12 evidence (“New oil spill plan needed†April 22) the same as the Sun Sentinel Card in the 1AC? Why doesn't the card flow AFF?

2. Your sadowski card talks a big game about how Cuba is safe at drilling. Does it indicate that Cuba possesses the following: 1. Submersible rigs 2. Well caps 3. Dispersants 4. Booms 5. Skimming equipment 6. Well capping stacks?

3. All of your evidence is written in the context of cleaning up a spill (eg. reactive technology). Why does reactive technology alone in the status quo solve for the harms of the 1AC?

4. Why is the BP spill equivalent to a spill in Cuban waters? Didn't BP have US tech to clean it up? 

Case--Relations

1. On Fettweis, is it specific to anything more general than international perception of singular actions? And if so, why did Pearl Harbor cause the US to declare war on the Axis powers?

2. Your Bert and Clayton 12 evidence says that oil would not alter broader US policy towards Cuba. Is that really a solvency deficit or a statement of fact? Eg. are you claiming the plan need to alter broader US policy in order to solve for relations?

3. Your pan card talks about how china threat construction leads to war preparedness on both sides. Why isn't that a deterring factor?

4. Does discourse precede policy analysis and impacts and if so why?

 

Thanks so much.

Edited by lolwut5

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...