Jump to content
Mummyhandgrenade

Mummyhandgrenade [aff] v. lolwut5 [neg]

Recommended Posts

Hegemony

1. What is hegemony, as described by the 1AC?

1. If the internal link to hegemony is based upon this idea of perceived legitimacy,

a. is American power is determined by pro-American or anti-American sentiment around the world? :-/

b. Why is the plan able to overcome anti-American sentiment in say, Latin America, which has a history of animosity towards the US due to its numerous coups, or Europe, say, which is PO'd about the NSA Scandal, among other things, like why does UNCLOS suddenly reverse all of the US's legitimacy problems?

2. If your authors are funded by the military industrial complex, how can they have anything objective to say about the effects of hegemony?

3. Wolforth ev is tagged as 'empirics'--i have this cool Monteiro ev that mentions a specific number of how many more wars occur in a unipolar system, is there a number in this ev or is it just anecdotal historical examples?

4. Assuming hegemony is a good thing--doesn't UNCLOS apply un-needed (and costly) restrictions on the environmental and military actions the US Navy/private sector more broadly can undertake? 

5. You say that hegemony is key to Middle Eastern stability--explain why the Iraq & Afghanistan wars happened to me. 

Sea Cables

1. What is the economy?

2. What's the economic downturn threshold for your Harris and Burrows ev?

3. Royal ev says "sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect"

while the Harris and Burrows ev says "The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East" -- do we fabricate conflicts or do we pull back?

4. What is terrorism? 

5. Who are the terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hegemony

1. What is hegemony, as described by the 1AC?

I'll defend hegemony as being military (hard) power and soft power that underpins the current international liberal order positioned around and sustained by the United States

1. If the internal link to hegemony is based upon this idea of perceived legitimacy,

a. is American power is determined by pro-American or anti-American sentiment around the world? :-/

A combination of both I guess. Our link is centered around how the perception of American power as being legitimate means that the backlash to American action is none. Our evidence discusses how in the Cold War American power was perceived as legitimate as supporting the international order in the face of the Soviet Union, and ratifying UNCLOS shows the US is willing to bind itself to the international order, and thus its use of power is for the good of the international order.

b. Why is the plan able to overcome anti-American sentiment in say, Latin America, which has a history of animosity towards the US due to its numerous coups, or Europe, say, which is PO'd about the NSA Scandal, among other things, like why does UNCLOS suddenly reverse all of the US's legitimacy problems?

The reason the United States has refused to ratify the treaty is because of a confused minority in Congress who think ratifying destroys US sovereignty. Our Bellinger ev says that this mindset is based on misperceptions not truth, but our Ashfaq ev says that binding ourselves to UNCLOS signals a shift towards legitimacy and acceptance of US action

2. If your authors are funded by the military industrial complex, how can they have anything objective to say about the effects of hegemony?

Funding doesn't necessarily corrupt scholarship

3. Wolforth ev is tagged as 'empirics'--i have this cool Monteiro ev that mentions a specific number of how many more wars occur in a unipolar system, is there a number in this ev or is it just anecdotal historical examples?

The two greatest wars in history, World Wars One and Two occurred because of failures in multipolar systems. I'd prefer quality over quantity. But yeah Wohlforth is using historical examples.

4. Assuming hegemony is a good thing--doesn't UNCLOS apply un-needed (and costly) restrictions on the environmental and military actions the US Navy/private sector more broadly can undertake? 

That's our Bellinger ev--the military and private sectors show massive support for UNCLOS. I'd prefer the word of the US Navy/private sector over what the Heritage Foundation or similar organizations suggest.

5. You say that hegemony is key to Middle Eastern stability--explain why the Iraq & Afghanistan wars happened to me. 

Bush and Cheney went rogue. They acted unilaterally (I don't define heg as precluding cooperation between nations just that the US should maintain its position as hegemon) and destroyed legitimacy. By binding the US to UNCLOS it signals a shift away from "going rogue". Also I'd contend this as another impact of terrorist attacks--governments act unpredictably and can create external conflicts.

Sea Cables

1. What is the economy?

defaulting to Merriam Webster "the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region"

2. What's the economic downturn threshold for your Harris and Burrows ev?

Any disastrous downturn in the global economy. Although the world was able to respond effectively to the downturn in 2007/8 I'll contend we still saw an overall more volatile environment (Arab Spring, ISIS, Syria etc.) and our Isidore ev suggests we won't be able to respond as effectively the second time around

3. Royal ev says "sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect"

while the Harris and Burrows ev says "The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East" -- do we fabricate conflicts or do we pull back?

Royal is isolating a trend in international politics of states to fabricate external conflict. Harris and Burrows are discussing how the United States tends to pull back or retrench troops (another reason for declining heg) when faced with economic decline. These aren't necessarily contradictory as H/B is only discussing US military presence and Royal isolates several other trends that increase conflict/volatility

4. What is terrorism? 

Terrorism can mean multiple different things in different circumstances. I'll default to Merriam Webster on this "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". I'll contend that I only take a stance on nuclear terrorist attacks as of the 1ac, not of terrorism as a whole.

5. Who are the terrorists?

Can you clarify? Are you asking who are terrorists in general? Or who are the terrorists that will deploy the attacks against the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hm. nevermind. i was using invisibility mode and word's word count, but i trust ya. 

btw, how do you access stats in the latest version of verbatim, do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hm. nevermind. i was using invisibility mode and word's word count, but i trust ya. 

 

i think invisibility mode also includes the full citation information, so that might be why it was off

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulli K

1. What is the status of the K?

2. You claim neg wins unless "the affirmative justifies their fundamental assumptions". What are these fundamental assumptions?

3. What is the alt and what does the ballot do?

 

Heg

1. Do you defend restraint in every instance?

2. Where do I define or defend heg as BIW's grand strategy?

 

Sea Cables

1. When, according to your Alexander and Rutherford evidence will collapse occur?

2. If we allow collapse how long will the transition take?

3. How many people will die in the transition?

4. How big does the collapse need to be to trigger the conciousness shift?

 

There may be follow-ups.

Edited by Mummyhandgrenade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T:

Why you do dis

i know this is a vdebate

BUT

lost ain't T

 

Y u no just call it Agamben? 

lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The team with the best method of questioning the assumptions of the 1AC should win the debate

I really love when the third and fourth teams come into the debate, it turns this FW from blatantly ridiculous to a fair competition.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulli K

1. What is the status of the K?  conditional 

2. You claim neg wins unless "the affirmative justifies their fundamental assumptions". What are these fundamental assumptions? questions of knowledge being good or bad. this is just a framing issue. 

3. What is the alt and what does the ballot do? we think voting neg is an intellectual stance of refusing to endorse the violence we describe. the aff does nothing except give us knowledge, we problematize that. 

 

Heg

1. Do you defend restraint in every instance? we make an argument about what the SQ is trending towards and we think that's good. 

2. Where do I define or defend heg as BIW's grand strategy? um. look back through your 1AC?...

 

Sea Cables

1. When, according to your Alexander and Rutherford evidence will collapse occurunhighlighted portion of the evidence says the world exceeds its carbon budget in around 18 years, chase-dunn ev says K-wave upswing occurs in the 2020s 

2. If we allow collapse how long will the transition take? nobody knows, but we think not long

3. How many people will die in the transition? lol people dying. exactly how would these people die? 

4. How big does the collapse need to be to trigger the conciousness shift? BIG AND BAD

 

There may be follow-ups. ooh scary

 

I really love when the third and fourth teams come into the debate, it turns this FW from blatantly ridiculous to a fair competition.

feel free to join in :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When, according to your Alexander and Rutherford evidence will collapse occurunhighlighted portion of the evidence says the world exceeds its carbon budget in around 18 years, chase-dunn ev says K-wave upswing occurs in the 2020s 

 

Why is a difference of 10 years key? If your A/R ev says the budget is hit in 18 and the 2020s end in 15 why can't we wait and still solve warming?

 

2. If we allow collapse how long will the transition take? nobody knows, but we think not long

 

We think? Do you have ev that highlights how long or takes a guess at how long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When, according to your Alexander and Rutherford evidence will collapse occurunhighlighted portion of the evidence says the world exceeds its carbon budget in around 18 years, chase-dunn ev says K-wave upswing occurs in the 2020s 

 

Why is a difference of 10 years key? If your A/R ev says the budget is hit in 18 and the 2020s end in 15 why can't we wait and still solve warming?

not 100% sure what you're asking with the first part of the question, but 'waiting and solving warming' 

a. is what we should have been doing the past 50 years, so good luck with that

b. won't address every other tipping point we mention 

c. is part of a consumptive drive that won't end absent a mindset shift

 

2. If we allow collapse how long will the transition take? nobody knows, but we think not long

 

We think? Do you have ev that highlights how long or takes a guess at how long?

as of the 1nc, no, which is why i had an awkward answer lol, but we'll read lewis ev in the block that clarifies :P

if you want my personal guess, not long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

1. when you say you meet increase, and you say "UNCLOS is vital for legal action in the EEZs", what does that even mean?

2. "Development—we use ocean spaces by establishing Exclusive Economic Zones" -- these are a legal construct. how is that a use of ocean space?

3. Donohue ev--literally says the US gets *legal rights* by acceding to UNCLOS for the minerals, not that the plan increases drilling--how is that an inherent increase in drilling?

4. your c/i--transfering and regulation of resources-- 

a. other affs that meet

b. neg ground under said c/i?

Hegemony

Page ev: 

1. says US restraint in Syria has been "profoundly destabilizing"--

a. does that mean we go and invade Syria?

b. Syria has been pretty rough for a long time--I really can't figure out a reason America cares that Syria has an awful dictator sans humanitarianism? Like honestly what key American interests are at stake?

c. Increasing US legitimacy solves this, how?

Sea Cables

does this advantage just shift to heg solves terrorism? IE econ turns aren't still a thing?

K

no questions

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

1. when you say you meet increase, and you say "UNCLOS is vital for legal action in the EEZs", what does that even mean?

UNCLOS creates EEZs. The legal modifier to the word action isn't suggesting action in the realm of law, but rather action that isn't illegal because technically we don't have rights to development in the EEZ now because without UNCLOS EEZs don't exist

2. "Development—we use ocean spaces by establishing Exclusive Economic Zones" -- these are a legal construct. how is that a use of ocean space?

It develops the space that encompasses 200 miles off of the coast as EEZs and the space beyond that as high seas

3. Donohue ev--literally says the US gets *legal rights* by acceding to UNCLOS for the minerals, not that the plan increases drilling--how is that an inherent increase in drilling?

It's the only barrier holding back mineral exploration

4. your c/i--transfering and regulation of resources-- 

a. other affs that meet

Our Pinto ev suggests that transference and regulation is inherent in the concept of development--meaning that you can define development as whatever you want but transference and regulation of the ocean and resources is an inherent component of that. This doesn't mean that affs that only transfer/regulate are topical, but I'd say OSW, Oil, nat gas,  and mining affs are all transference and regulation.

b. neg ground under said c/i?

To negate the resolution?

Hegemony

Page ev: 

1. says US restraint in Syria has been "profoundly destabilizing"--

a. does that mean we go and invade Syria?

No. What page is suggesting is that the best empirical example of restraint can be seen in the instance of the middle east and that it has failed terribly. Invading isn't the proper answer, but it would involve pressure to contain the conflict from escalating and spilling out of its borders.

b. Syria has been pretty rough for a long time--I really can't figure out a reason America cares that Syria has an awful dictator sans humanitarianism? Like honestly what key American interests are at stake?

It gave ISIS a foothold, it generated almost a million refugees, injected conflict into a relatively volatile region of the world. America cares because ensuring escalation doesn't happen is pretty important for global stability. Also, the middle east is a huge producer of oil and the US a interest in ensuring it's safe export to the global market place.

c. Increasing US legitimacy solves this, how?

Iraq/Afghanistan wars decimated our legitimacy in the region and in the world, binding the US to international law helps reduce that--that's Ashfaq. I'll contend that the US pulled out of the Middle East because of international pressures--i.e. the international community disapproved. We need legitimacy to ensure military operations aren't rejected by the international community

Sea Cables

does this advantage just shift to heg solves terrorism? IE econ turns aren't still a thing?

Yeah. I'm saying that there isn't any impact to an attack on sea cables and international institutions will act to prevent decline, but heg solves the terror impacts which have a high likelihood of occuring absent the 1ac.

K

no questions

I'm going to bed now. I'll answer any follow-ups/c-x in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If the alt is "an intellectual stance of refusing to endorse the violence we describe" how does rejection in this round spill over or do anything?

2. You say if we win the perm kick the alt and vote on epistemology. If you kick the alt is the K just an impact turn to knowledge in the status quo?

3. You claim you don't reject heg but rather promote "a problematization of the reasons behind it". If I win that the reasons for action in the 1AC are seperate from normative hegemonic action do I win the K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If the alt is "an intellectual stance of refusing to endorse the violence we describe" how does rejection in this round spill over or do anything? do people still ask this question? :3 not to bust your bubbles but, i don't recall the aff spilling over... lol... 

2. You say if we win the perm kick the alt and vote on epistemology. If you kick the alt is the K just an impact turn to knowledge in the status quo? the perm is silly because we question the knowledge behind the 1AC. if you don't reciprocally problematize the knowledge behind the 1AC it's not competitive, ie able to be perm-ed. 

3. You claim you don't reject heg but rather promote "a problematization of the reasons behind it". If I win that the reasons for action in the 1AC are seperate from normative hegemonic action do I win the K? i mean you read this reus smit ev that's like heg could prevent genocide--sure, like fighting Germany was good in WWII but it's a question of outcomes right--the aff does not sufficiently alter the bad practices in the SQ which means you can win the aff is a good form of hegemony and still vote neg on the alt accesses broader changes

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...