Jump to content
ARGogate

Round ? ARGogate (AFF) vs Snarf (NEG)

Recommended Posts

I think Snarf and ARGogate should judge, they'd probably be able to judge this pretty well. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff. Akash is a cool kid, even when he reads gendered 1ACs :)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First CX question - do you want me to have fun with this (one to two advocacies, likely both interrelated kritiks whose subject rhymes with flagender) or test it like I would in a real round (a mixture of off and case)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First CX question - do you want me to have fun with this (one to two advocacies, likely both interrelated kritiks whose subject rhymes with flagender) or test it like I would in a real round (a mixture of off and case)

 

I'll have to go for the latter this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naval Diplomacy

1. Your Jones and Wright card outlines hypothetical conflict scenarios which they assert "could spiral into crisis". Your tag says "global war inevitable" [emphasis yours]. Why the discrepancy?

2. Jones and Wright say the proper steps to "preserve and strengthen the [international] order" necessarily include: ratifying 'mega free-trade agreements', sabre rattling at Russia over Ukraine, successful Israel/Palestine Peace Talks, and an Iranian nuclear deal that ends their prolif. How does the aff solve these four essential steps?

3. Jones and Wright identify the shift away from Great Power peace as a result of "new doctrines of intervention" and "new technologies of war" such as "drones, cyber". How does the affirmative end the evolving regime of liberal-humanitarian interventions abroad, and in what ways does it curtail the development of global military technology?

4. What in this card indicates naval balancing...?

5. We've not had LOST in the roughly 30 months since the Wright card was written, and no great power war. What new variable will cause the presently peaceful conditions to turn to war?

6. Wright says that a multilateral diplomatic negotiation structure between China and territories in the South China Sea solves war. How does the US ratification of a decades old treaty to which China has long been a party?

7. Eaglen and McGrath 11 write "Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power". Why do you de-emphasize the term "dramatically"?

8. Does anywhere in the card indicate that Eaglen and McGrath assume passage of LOST?

9. Kelly 12 indicates that LOST would facilitate Chinese cooperation over Senkaku. If the Chinese are willing to cooperate, why would they make the jump to war? If they're not, what does LOST do?

10. What's the warrant for Smith 14 identifying leadership in China as "firebrands"?

11. Is the US controlled by "firebrands" as well?

12. Smith says "resolve" and "military capability" are sufficient to deter Chinese aggression. Why should we selectively evaluate the claims of this author? If we should not selectively evaluate, then why isn't the squo sufficient to solve?

13. Why does Senkaku war draw the US in?

14. Patrick 12 says "US will inevitably be constrained by LOST" but the warrant in Kelly 12's facilitation assertion is that China can't force the US to submit to jurisdiction under LOST dispute resolution features, and can't force compliance with LOST tenants. Which card is wrong?

 

Arctic

1. Weir says "the race to control the arctic is intesifying" and then the un-underlined portion references canadian development. Is Canada going to war?

2. What makes Weir say Russia will return to "Soviet-Era" military airfields? Noted that "soviet-era" was un-underlined. 

3. Weir says "the world hasn't changed all that much since the Cold War". Did he miss the collapse of the USSR or...?

4. What similarities are there between July 2, 2014 and the Cold War?

5. Your stealth warming impact suggests that tipping points "are beginning to appear" - in February 2009. When do we hit tipping points and how do we know?

6. Macalister 11's tag suggests we're on the brink of a "new" cold war. I thought the world hasn't changed that much since the Cold War?

7. Murray 12 says "scholars" support your assertion. The text of the card is a survey of various approaches to IR, with the realist explanation being the one you highlighted. Why are realists the "best scholarship" (your tag)?

8. In Murray, you highlight his cites of Layne and Mearshimer - realists who would laugh at your institutional liberal aff. Why should we cherry pick their assertions?

9. What's the impact to keystone species collapse?

10. How much biotoxin is necessary to trigger extinction? Do all humans die as a result? Why didn't BP kill you? I'm a vegan - why do oil food-chain-magnified biotoxins kill me if I don't eat past the first trophic level of the food chain?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arctic

1. Weir says "the race to control the arctic is intesifying" and then the un-underlined portion references canadian development. Is Canada going to war?

I actually looked this one up, and Canada's been super edgy about Russia's claims in the Arctic. Plus that whole flag thing got to them. Canada's announced a MASSIVE claim on arctic resources that "set off alarm bells in Moscow." Their repeated military exercises and retaliation threats (I was surprised at this one too) don't help either. And while I highly doubt that Canada will go to war, it's not exactly helpful for current tensions and Russia's decision calculus in the face of other potential competitors either, especially since the Weir article says that Putin's current plan amounts to a sweeping military patrol of the entire Arctic.

 

2. What makes Weir say Russia will return to "Soviet-Era" military airfields? Noted that "soviet-era" was un-underlined.

It's not really an important note, since I think that "Russia will restore...military airfields" gets the point across. It's based off this:

 

"Speaking to Defense Ministry officials Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin ordered stepped up military deployments and construction of permanent infrastructure to host Russian forces."

 

"Under Putin's plan, Russia will restore Soviet-era military airfields in the Arctic, deploy special forces to the north, and attempt to patrol the entire far-flung area between Norway and Alaska."

 

3. Weir says "the world hasn't changed all that much since the Cold War". Did he miss the collapse of the USSR or...?

Citing Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the independent institute of political and military analysis in Moscow. He's referring to current Arctic tensions.

 

4. What similarities are there between July 2, 2014 and the Cold War?

Clarify please, I can't compare one day to 40+ years. Sanctions on Russia? :D

 

5. Your stealth warming impact suggests that tipping points "are beginning to appear" - in February 2009. When do we hit tipping points and how do we know?

My bad for the stealth part, the 1ACs I read typically lack tricks/shenanigans. If I remember my numbers, methane hydrates will unfreeze and do explody things by 2018 (not in the card, and 2016 by military measurements, but I don't look to the military to do accurate climate statistics), glaciers completely melt down in about 50 years (in the card). As for extinction, when this card was written, CO2 levels were at 385 ppm, and 500 is death by fire, with levels rising by about 2 ppm/yr. Assuming a linear trend line for the data, that's 57.5 years from 2009, when the card was written, which according to my math puts us at extinction in approximately 52.1666 (repeating, of course) years. We're right now at around 401.8 ppm CO2 (source: http://co2now.org/). That's the average on June 4, 2014. If we use this new number for the y1 value in our calculations, then the adjusted date for absolute heat-death becomes about 48.9466769977 years from the exact time of this post (accounting for the delay between writing and posting). It also tells us that the real dy/dx for recent climate trends follows a line probably described by a differential equation, first order (probably linear), with simple mathematical reasoning showing that it probably resembles something like y' - (a/t)y = t4sin(bt) + ct3 - dt2 + e, where a,b,c,d, and e are positive integers (e is probably zero but will vary between models).

 

6. Macalister 11's tag suggests we're on the brink of a "new" cold war. I thought the world hasn't changed that much since the Cold War?

One card is referring to military competition in the Arctic. Also, the old one war b/w the US and USSR, so technically, this would be called the "new" cold war because as you said, there's no more USSR

 

7. Murray 12 says "scholars" support your assertion. The text of the card is a survey of various approaches to IR, with the realist explanation being the one you highlighted. Why are realists the "best scholarship" (your tag)?

I don't agree with that assessment. I think Murray overwhelmingly supports the realist explanation, and only mentions other theories to refute them. 

 

8. In Murray, you highlight his cites of Layne and Mearshimer - realists who would laugh at your institutional liberal aff. Why should we cherry pick their assertions?

Somehow I think Layne would say this aff is a good idea. I also don't understand your question. Could you clarify what context you're using to deem it cherry picking?

 

9. What's the impact to keystone species collapse?

That card shouldn't be there. Disregard it.

 

10. How much biotoxin is necessary to trigger extinction? Do all humans die as a result? Why didn't BP kill you? I'm a vegan - why do oil food-chain-magnified biotoxins kill me if I don't eat past the first trophic level of the food chain?

Not much, since it's radioactive waste. This card says extinction of humans. BP wasn't a nuclear submarine collision. I'll concede the next point - all vegans will probably survive (pro tip if you're planning for the future). Things like milk will probably become radioactive.

 

 

heidegger link?

 

I'll do the other questions tomorrow

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naval Diplomacy

1. Your Jones and Wright card outlines hypothetical conflict scenarios which they assert "could spiral into crisis". Your tag says "global war inevitable" [emphasis yours]. Why the discrepancy?

If it's not status quo tensions, it's the environment. Or resource availability. Or that movie North Korea hates. It's all about the security dilemma.

 

2. Jones and Wright say the proper steps to "preserve and strengthen the [international] order" necessarily include: ratifying 'mega free-trade agreements', sabre rattling at Russia over Ukraine, successful Israel/Palestine Peace Talks, and an Iranian nuclear deal that ends their prolif. How does the aff solve these four essential steps?

It doesn't. This aff by no means results in world peace. But I'll defend that ratification can solve the specific ECS/SCS scenarios as well as overall naval effectiveness.

 

3. Jones and Wright identify the shift away from Great Power peace as a result of "new doctrines of intervention" and "new technologies of war" such as "drones, cyber". How does the affirmative end the evolving regime of liberal-humanitarian interventions abroad, and in what ways does it curtail the development of global military technology?'

If you mean boots-on-the-ground intervention, Obama is shifting away from that (hence the apparent need for "new technologies of war"). 

 

4. What in this card indicates naval balancing...?

The US is increasingly favoring naval power. That navy will be used to balance against threats.

 

"Several major powers are engaged in a robust security competition. The greatest risk stems from the rivalry between China and Japan in the East China Sea, but rivalry also exists in Southeast Asia between the United States and China, and in Eastern Europe, as the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine illustrates. Indeed, Russia’s annexation of Crimea may be a turning point in the post-Cold War order.

These competitive rivalries are being played out in part in the world’s oceans. Intractable territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea have become increasingly dangerous and could spiral into crisis. To date, efforts to introduce a code of conduct or other mechanisms to de-escalate tensions have failed."

 

5. We've not had LOST in the roughly 30 months since the Wright card was written, and no great power war. What new variable will cause the presently peaceful conditions to turn to war?

The Jones and Wright card is from March and makes the claim that those conflicts are intensifying and set to escalate. You know as well an I do that in the time between 2012 and now the US has pretty much created another security dilemma (with China) by ramping up its use of all the alt causes you cite in #3.

 

6. Wright says that a multilateral diplomatic negotiation structure between China and territories in the South China Sea solves war. How does the US ratification of a decades old treaty to which China has long been a party?

Wat? If you're asking how it solves, the treaty set up a pretty effective "multilateral diplomatic negotiation structure" that the US cannot use because it hasn't signed on.

 

7. Eaglen and McGrath 11 write "Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power". Why do you de-emphasize the term "dramatically"?

Probably for word efficiency. And I did make sure to underline it. I'll defend that having a navy but no legitimate way to use it in the Pacific/Arctic is a "dramatic" reduction.

 

8. Does anywhere in the card indicate that Eaglen and McGrath assume passage of LOST?

Generic impact card. You win that one.

 

9. Kelly 12 indicates that LOST would facilitate Chinese cooperation over Senkaku. If the Chinese are willing to cooperate, why would they make the jump to war? If they're not, what does LOST do?

The Chinese are willing to cooperate with the US post-plan. They are not in the status quo. Ratification = cooperation.

 

10. What's the warrant for Smith 14 identifying leadership in China as "firebrands"?

Insecurity in the region has 1. increased the amount of hypernationalist propaganda in circulation, and 2. made the PLA more aggressive and risk-prone in its statements and military activities.

 

11. Is the US controlled by "firebrands" as well?

Yes, but at least we got Barry O

 

12. Smith says "resolve" and "military capability" are sufficient to deter Chinese aggression. Why should we selectively evaluate the claims of this author? If we should not selectively evaluate, then why isn't the squo sufficient to solve?

I would say that the US possesses the military power but hasn't demonstrated it's resolve to China. LOST would send that signal.

 

13. Why does Senkaku war draw the US in?

Some treaty with a long name obligates the US to back Japan in the event of a war. Obama has frequently asserted that the US would retaliate to any attack. Helluva costly signal.

 

14. Patrick 12 says "US will inevitably be constrained by LOST" but the warrant in Kelly 12's facilitation assertion is that China can't force the US to submit to jurisdiction under LOST dispute resolution features, and can't force compliance with LOST tenants. Which card is wrong?

In the context of the Kelly evidence, the US is currently unable to use the LOST dispute mechanism to negotiate/highlight the limits of Chinese claims in the ECS and SCS. The warrant in the Patrick card is that China and other nations do not see US interpretations of LOST as legitimate because the US has not ratified the treaty. The US literally cannot bring its complaints to the table because it hasn't signed on.

 

Btw for educational purposes, you all should take note of the way Snarf asked his questions.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw I did actual calculations for the warming question. Should we be scared?

 

EDIT: It's really really hard to not make offensive assumptions in CX answers. You can tell from my offensive assumptions.

Edited by ARGogate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw I did actual calculations for the warming question. Should we be scared?

 

EDIT: It's really really hard to not make offensive assumptions in CX answers. You can tell from my offensive assumptions.

offensive assumptoins like offense on a disad offense? or offensive like "that hurt my feelings?" if the latter, sorry for any potential social misgraces on my part - I wrote those q's late after handling the Deleuze round the other place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - today is day three in whats shaping up to be an 80 hour work week and I'm too tired to do cross. follow ups tomorrow! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snarf, on 02 Jul 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:snapback.png

Arctic

1. Weir says "the race to control the arctic is intesifying" and then the un-underlined portion references canadian development. Is Canada going to war?

I actually looked this one up, and Canada's been super edgy about Russia's claims in the Arctic. Plus that whole flag thing got to them. Canada's announced a MASSIVE claim on arctic resources that "set off alarm bells in Moscow." Their repeated military exercises and retaliation threats (I was surprised at this one too) don't help either. And while I highly doubt that Canada will go to war, it's not exactly helpful for current tensions and Russia's decision calculus in the face of other potential competitors either, especially since the Weir article says that Putin's current plan amounts to a sweeping military patrol of the entire Arctic.

Agreed that tensions have caused conflict (disagreement and diplomatic responses). What incentive does Canada have to escalate those conflicts to war? The same for Russia - LNG is the core of their economy. Whats the incentive?

 

2. What makes Weir say Russia will return to "Soviet-Era" military airfields? Noted that "soviet-era" was un-underlined.

It's not really an important note, since I think that "Russia will restore...military airfields" gets the point across. It's based off this:

 

"Speaking to Defense Ministry officials Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin ordered stepped up military deployments and construction of permanent infrastructure to host Russian forces."

 

"Under Putin's plan, Russia will restore Soviet-era military airfields in the Arctic, deploy special forces to the north, and attempt to patrol the entire far-flung area between Norway and Alaska."

 

Yeah, fair enough.

 

3. Weir says "the world hasn't changed all that much since the Cold War". Did he miss the collapse of the USSR or...?

Citing Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the independent institute of political and military analysis in Moscow. He's referring to current Arctic tensions.

Do you defend "current arctic tensions" are comparable to the likelihood of conflict in the Cold War?
 

4. What similarities are there between July 2, 2014 and the Cold War?

Clarify please, I can't compare one day to 40+ years. Sanctions on Russia?  :D

lol fair enough - in what ways does the modern security situation parallel the Cold War security situation?

 

5. Your stealth warming impact suggests that tipping points "are beginning to appear" - in February 2009. When do we hit tipping points and how do we know?

My bad for the stealth part, the 1ACs I read typically lack tricks/shenanigans. If I remember my numbers, methane hydrates will unfreeze and do explody things by 2018 (not in the card, and 2016 by military measurements, but I don't look to the military to do accurate climate statistics), glaciers completely melt down in about 50 years (in the card). As for extinction, when this card was written, CO2 levels were at 385 ppm, and 500 is death by fire, with levels rising by about 2 ppm/yr. Assuming a linear trend line for the data, that's 57.5 years from 2009, when the card was written, which according to my math puts us at extinction in approximately 52.1666 (repeating, of course) years. We're right now at around 401.8 ppm CO2 (source: http://co2now.org/). That's the average on June 4, 2014. If we use this new number for the y1 value in our calculations, then the adjusted date for absolute heat-death becomes about 48.9466769977 years from the exact time of this post (accounting for the delay between writing and posting). It also tells us that the real dy/dx for recent climate trends follows a line probably described by a differential equation, first order (probably linear), with simple mathematical reasoning showing that it probably resembles something like y' - (a/t)y = t4sin(bt) + ct3 - dt2 + e, where a,b,c,d, and e are positive integers (e is probably zero but will vary between models).

 

meta-level - to readers of this debate: this was an exciting read - I'm being 100% serious. Even if it is entirely bullshit, this is exactly the type of answer to give because it sounds credible. A lot of debaters give a glib restatement of their tag (something akin to "warming coming now" or a banal assertion that it'll conveniently happen juuuust soon enough to outweigh neg disads). 

 

Akash - it's definitely a differential equation, or there's no internal link to runaway warming (lines don't exponent, they progress in a...well, in a line).  how can a model (conceptually, at the operationalization level - I'm not asking you to write a diffeq...yet) account for nonanthropocentric factors like sun strength and endogenous factors like human response?

 

6. Macalister 11's tag suggests we're on the brink of a "new" cold war. I thought the world hasn't changed that much since the Cold War?

One card is referring to military competition in the Arctic. Also, the old one war b/w the US and USSR, so technically, this would be called the "new" cold war because as you said, there's no more USSR

I would be inclined to agree, which is why I'm confused why your card is tagged "new cold war". Ukraine (which involves the same internal links in this card - scarce resources, perhaps even more so because NATO and Western states currently rely on LNG) did not escalate. What factors would cause the Arctic - farther from domestic territory of every major world power - to spawn a conflict that Ukraine couldn't spawn?

 

7. Murray 12 says "scholars" support your assertion. The text of the card is a survey of various approaches to IR, with the realist explanation being the one you highlighted. Why are realists the "best scholarship" (your tag)?

I don't agree with that assessment. I think Murray overwhelmingly supports the realist explanation, and only mentions other theories to refute them. 

Murray agrees to the necessity of "gender and sexual politics" to explain international politics and thinks "discursive power" shapes IR. Both quotes from sentence three. How do those jive with either a realist or an liberal institutionalist epistemology of IR?

Second follow up - does realism or liberal internationalism explain a larger number of IR phenomena generally and IR conflicts specifically?

 

8. In Murray, you highlight his cites of Layne and Mearshimer - realists who would laugh at your institutional liberal aff. Why should we cherry pick their assertions?

Somehow I think Layne would say this aff is a good idea. I also don't understand your question. Could you clarify what context you're usin to deem it cherry picking?

Realists (including Layne, cited here by Waltz for criticism of the proposition that international institutions and norms bind states, and Mearshimer, who literally wrote an article called "the false promise of liberal institutions") think that institutions are a bad joke because states can cheat, enforcement is impossible, and might makes right. Whether or not those are true, realists generally and those realists specifically believe them to be true, and would consequently dismiss your aff as misguided at best. Why should we ignore the broader professional judgment of Mearshimer and Layne though trust their selective quotation in Murray?

 

9. What's the impact to keystone species collapse?

That card shouldn't be there. Disregard it.

ok. any other cards like that?

 

10. How much biotoxin is necessary to trigger extinction? Do all humans die as a result? Why didn't BP kill you? I'm a vegan - why do oil food-chain-magnified biotoxins kill me if I don't eat past the first trophic level of the food chain?

Not much, since it's radioactive waste. This card says extinction of humans. BP wasn't a nuclear submarine collision. I'll concede the next point - all vegans will probably survive (pro tip if you're planning for the future). Things like milk will probably become radioactive.

If the card says "extinction of humans" but "all vegans will probably survive", then you'd agree that the card has at least one false proposition in it, right?

 

heidegger link? I'll do the other questions tomorrow

I haven't decided the 1NC yet. My gut response to this aff would be K + Impact turns/defense but I'm trying to provide a more diverse 1NC lol. I refuse to read politics though - at an ethical level.

 

Snarf, on 02 Jul 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:snapback.png

Naval Diplomacy

1. Your Jones and Wright card outlines hypothetical conflict scenarios which they assert "could spiral into crisis". Your tag says "global war inevitable" [emphasis yours]. Why the discrepancy?

If it's not status quo tensions, it's the environment. Or resource availability. Or that movie North Korea hates. It's all about the security dilemma.

Or none of them. Your aff says the security dilemma can be solved through iterative trust building exercises through international agencies like the UN. Why do you overstate the claim of the author?

 

2. Jones and Wright say the proper steps to "preserve and strengthen the [international] order" necessarily include: ratifying 'mega free-trade agreements', sabre rattling at Russia over Ukraine, successful Israel/Palestine Peace Talks, and an Iranian nuclear deal that ends their prolif. How does the aff solve these four essential steps?

It doesn't. This aff by no means results in world peace. But I'll defend that ratification can solve the specific ECS/SCS scenarios as well as overall naval effectiveness.

Ok - so the aff doesn't portend to solve anything besides the specific scenarios outlined in the ECS/SCS cards?

 

3. Jones and Wright identify the shift away from Great Power peace as a result of "new doctrines of intervention" and "new technologies of war" such as "drones, cyber". How does the affirmative end the evolving regime of liberal-humanitarian interventions abroad, and in what ways does it curtail the development of global military technology?'

If you mean boots-on-the-ground intervention, Obama is shifting away from that (hence the apparent need for "new technologies of war"). 

Right - Jones and Wright say "we're going to go to war anyway more often because we don't need boots on the ground when we have drones". How does your aff solve the technological facilitation of war?

 

4. What in this card indicates naval balancing...?

The US is increasingly favoring naval power. That navy will be used to balance against threats.

I understand what balancing is - I'm asking where the Jones and Wright card says "the navy will be used to curtail and project specific power against particular conduct of ________ nations against whom they balance"?

 

"Several major powers are engaged in a robust security competition. The greatest risk stems from the rivalry between China and Japan in the East China Sea, but rivalry also exists in Southeast Asia between the United States and Chinaand in Eastern Europe, as the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine illustrates. Indeed, Russia’s annexation of Crimea may be a turning point in the post-Cold War order.

These competitive rivalries are being played out in part in the world’s oceans. Intractable territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea have become increasingly dangerous and could spiral into crisis. To date, efforts to introduce a code of conduct or other mechanisms to de-escalate tensions have failed."

What part of that do you think indicates balancing?

 

5. We've not had LOST in the roughly 30 months since the Wright card was written, and no great power war. What new variable will cause the presently peaceful conditions to turn to war?

The Jones and Wright card is from March and makes the claim that those conflicts are intensifying and set to escalate. You know as well an I do that in the time between 2012 and now the US has pretty much created another security dilemma (with China) by ramping up its use of all the alt causes you cite in #3.

If they're set to escalate, then why has Europe declined to further sanction Russia, why has the US failed to take military action and has committed to negotiation, and why are Obama and Putin backtracking away from conflict over the election of Poroshenko? Hell, Obama didn't even freak when Russia signed the multibillion dollar LNG deal with China guaranteeing their solvency for the next 30 years. What new variables will cause the presently peaceful - turning more peaceful - conditions to turn to war?

 

6. Wright says that a multilateral diplomatic negotiation structure between China and territories in the South China Sea solves war. How does the US ratification of a decades old treaty to which China has long been a party?

Wat? If you're asking how it solves, the treaty set up a pretty effective "multilateral diplomatic negotiation structure" that the US cannot use because it hasn't signed on.

no idea where I got my initial reading of the card (which was that it had to be between China and the SCS territories. sleepiness suuuuuucks.

 

7. Eaglen and McGrath 11 write "Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power". Why do you de-emphasize the term "dramatically"?

Probably for word efficiency. And I did make sure to underline it. I'll defend that having a navy but no legitimate way to use it in the Pacific/Arctic is a "dramatic" reduction.

Is the ability to use it in the Pacific/Arctic more important than the perception of that? If we had no navy, but China et al believed we were still serious boss ass motherfuckers (maybe because of increasing cyber ops and drone warfare)

 

8. Does anywhere in the card indicate that Eaglen and McGrath assume passage of LOST?

Generic impact card. You win that one.

 

9. Kelly 12 indicates that LOST would facilitate Chinese cooperation over Senkaku. If the Chinese are willing to cooperate, why would they make the jump to war? If they're not, what does LOST do?

The Chinese are willing to cooperate with the US post-plan. They are not in the status quo. Ratification = cooperation.

really? the turning point for relations between China and the US is a decades old treaty and not, say, Taiwan or the yuan or tarriffs? why would firebrands cooperate with the US anyway?

 

10. What's the warrant for Smith 14 identifying leadership in China as "firebrands"?

Insecurity in the region has 1. increased the amount of hypernationalist propaganda in circulation, and 2. made the PLA more aggressive and risk-prone in its statements and military activities.

1. from the government, or from randos? the tea party writes lots of shit that doesnt represent obama's fopo. 2. what military activities suggest a propensity to escalate to war?

 

11. Is the US controlled by "firebrands" as well?

Yes, but at least we got 

LOL at the video.

so if we're firebrands and they're firebrands and firebrands will find a way to go to war, then what factors stop the aff ! scenarios from being inevitable?

 

12. Smith says "resolve" and "military capability" are sufficient to deter Chinese aggression. Why should we selectively evaluate the claims of this author? If we should not selectively evaluate, then why isn't the squo sufficient to solve?

I would say that the US possesses the military power but hasn't demonstrated it's resolve to China. LOST would send that signal.

what's "resolve" in this context? if Obama has "frequently asserted that the US would retaliate to any attack", why hasn't it demonstrated resolve? 

 

13. Why does Senkaku war draw the US in?

Some treaty with a long name obligates the US to back Japan in the event of a war. Obama has frequently asserted that the US would retaliate to any attack. Helluva costly signal.

those treaties usually have an out (you cannot be the aggressor, we reserve the right not to if it goes nuclear, our guaranteed committment is capped at ____ thousand soldiers) - which treaty is it, so we can evaluate whether or not there's an out?

 

14. Patrick 12 says "US will inevitably be constrained by LOST" but the warrant in Kelly 12's facilitation assertion is that China can't force the US to submit to jurisdiction under LOST dispute resolution features, and can't force compliance with LOST tenants. Which card is wrong?

In the context of the Kelly evidence, the US is currently unable to use the LOST dispute mechanism to negotiate/highlight the limits of Chinese claims in the ECS and SCS. The warrant in the Patrick card is that China and other nations do not see US interpretations of LOST as legitimate because the US has not ratified the treaty. The US literally cannot bring its complaints to the table because it hasn't signed on.

 

Btw for educational purposes, you all should take note of the way Snarf asked his questions.

thanks Akash. law school does that to you haha

Edited by Snarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nr/2ar should be 50% pure calculus. I'd love to see people judge that.

 

EDIT: seriously, though, doesn't anyone else find it scary that I can arrive at "extinction in 50 years" by using a LINEAR trendline? The actual set of equations to describe this would most likely say 500 ppm comes sooner...

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think we can survive 50 yrs? It's easier to get a gun than it is for many people to get married. I say we've got a solid decade left as a species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think we can survive 50 yrs? It's easier to get a gun than it is for many people to get married. I say we've got a solid decade left as a species.

Hey.  Getting married is hard.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey.  Getting married is hard.

I never thought I'd say this but, KimJongUn gets it

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think we can survive 50 yrs? It's easier to get a gun than it is for many people to get married. I say we've got a solid decade left as a species.

'Murica isn't the whole species.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Murica isn't the whole species.

Let's see, there's America....And those darn commies who haven't experienced the wonders of democracy yet

  • Upvote 1

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...