Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


fhqwhgads last won the day on February 5 2007

fhqwhgads had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About fhqwhgads

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 08/24/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  1. Thanks for the history update. But its absurd of you to claim that people dont advocate non-interventionism or even isolationism now. There was a good 2005 book by a dude named Donald Schmidt which had some of the better isolationism good cards I've ever read. Layne still writes a ton. Bandow. All the critical IR scholars--Wendt and crew. Even Mearsheimer says that the idea of hegemony is impossible. Your statement that "IR scholars" all agree on hegemony is absurd or the topic wouldnt have been the main focus of the national interest this past year. Your two examples are Khalilzad and Obama which proves my "sarcastic" point that in DC people accept leadership as inevitable and debate what to do with it because they are in that position. No, but there are scholars who say that China's economic strength is a counter-balance to the US which creates stability. Consider how many people would make this arg: "[bush's interventionist] response to the [iraq situation] was the [wrong] thing to do. There was no international consensus and the US had no right ot encroach on the country's sovereignty." Sure you do. I think your definition of "important publications" is skewed and doesnt really provide an accurate representation of what "IR scholar" literature encompasses. If by "important publication" you mean Foreign Affairs then yes, there are very few opponents of american leadership who write in foreign affairs. If you include any number of other very qualified journals the debate still rages. Journals like, I dont know Foreign Policy, National Interest International Security, Journal of Strategic Studies, Security Studies, Orbis, etc. While he did work at CATO, he also taught at the Kennedy school of government the Naval postgraduate school and about 3 other places. His views dont get blown off. Think about it--if these voices were such a minority in academia then why did Mandelbaum have to write an 05 book called "In Defense of Goliath"? Why did Thayer have to have a debate with Layne in the national interest? Because these questions are far from resolved. Restraint in the sense of prioritizing national interest/pure realism exclusively over other ideals. When many people defend this idea they actually are accused of being isolationist.
  2. Are you kidding? Do you know who Christopher Layne is? Also, there was a back-and-forth debate between Layne and Thayer in the National Interest in 06 and Layne has an 06 book. Oh, and I guess all the realists who call for restrained foreign policy are just "contrary voices in the minority of academia"? Yeah sure, in DC everybody accepts leadership--thats because its the god damn capitol of the US. In academia... not so much.
  3. No that turn is backwards. A collapse of economic growth would prevent us from hitting peak oil. Thats just a traditional "dedev" debate with "collapse => mindset shift." But the collapse wouldn't be the result of peak oil. You could just say peak oil makes collapse inevitable so its better now than later.
  4. The food argument is probably wrong because of biotech/GM crops etc, but there are plenty of other arguments why a large population is unsustainable. Its absurd to say that theories about a population capacity are just "wrong." Popular reasons why its unsusustainable include: we use trees and water faster than they replenish, we are too dependant on non-renewable energy, etc. It's certainly not a "done-deal" like if you read one malthus is wrong card, you won't just automatically win the debate in the face of a diverse number of unsustainability warrants. BTW Synergy. Don't assume your article "answers" Peak Oil. Yes, it briefly references it, and as a bullet point mentions an article for why ethanol solves. There are lots of problems with ethanol including the huge amounts of land it takes to produce, its effects on global warming, etc. That opens up a whole nother can of worms you have to debate if you want to win that argument.
  5. The impact to F-22 is hegemony. I wouldn't suggest your strategy. Even in a world of functional competition, you only evaluate function based on the plan, not the advantage. There is nothing preventing there from being a larger Army but also a less interventionist Army. Deterrence. It could only "prevent the transition" if you were reading OSB as uniqueness (i.e. OSB coming now). The nature of a permutation capturing the CPs fiat means the plan cant prevent the CP. I'm just saying, it doesnt really help to invest a bunch of time to win 1% of a risk of a link to a DA. Thats still 1% of a DA vs a bunch of the case.
  6. I don't want to be offensive. But just as a general comment, taking the extra minute or so to add grammar and punctuation to your posts would make them easier to read and probably increase your credibility. 1. The perm definitely links to politics, but not to heg bad. If you FIAT a change in US grand strategy towards Offshore Balancing, the plan doesn't overcome a change in the nature of GRAND STRATEGY, it just provides 100K troops to be used FOR offshore balancing. The permutation wouldn't be perceived as hegemonic, because the dramatic nature of re-orienting grand strategy towards offshore balancing overcomes specific policy changes. 2. It isn't severance. The plan doesnt fiat "use of our military." The permutation severs "hegemony" which is just an advantage to the plan, not a part of it. You can increase troops for the purpose of facilitating offshore balancing. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about adventurism. Ok. Yes, he wants to provide equipment for troops. Thats different than Space Lasers, the FCS, or F-22s. That just proves that because he is dedicated to transformation and a troop increase that he will find useless programs (like the FCS) to cut instead of cutting the core technologies that your impact evidence would describe. 1. And so is every aff on this shitty topic. 2. It's not. The resolution says "establish a policy increasing" not "establish an increase." The only thing that has to be immediate is the creation of a policy. The implementation of that policy doesn't have to occur "immediately." This is where the lines fall down on your "FX T" violation. When you institute the Draft, you have to authorize it, then have a lottery via selective service, then people have to show up to the Army. When you increase End Strength, you have to authorize the higher number, then the military accepts more applicants.
  7. fiating offshore balancing arguably means the permutation fiats through the link to adventurism by functionally banning intervention. thats up for debate, but given the sketchiness of the link to adventurism in the first place (the idea that Bush is going to start up another war right before the 08 election goes in the category of absurd from any standpoint) that probably tips the balance. Gates actually does pose some uniqueness problems for RMA. He cut funds for the FCS by a significant degree as well as a bunch of other high-tech developments. That being said. Don't run F-22 and Nuclear Subs. You can only tradeoff with one thing. An end strength increase doesnt cost enough to trade off with a substantial number of F-22s AND nuclear submarines, and its even questionable if it trades off with a substantial number of just one of them.
  8. I was only responding to the particular scenario depicted by "thedowned." If the neg reads referendums with "plan unpopular" as their 1NC link to politics, they have fucked themselves. It is possible for the negative to make different link arguments, but thats not the scenario "thedowned" was describing. You should always make plan unpopular with the public arguments against the Referendums CP--and all of your reasons prove why. The link to politics is often more nuanced, so you can say plan unpopular with public = solvency deficit but also say public not key to agenda.
  9. if they say plan unpopular as their link in the 1nc, then they dont have a CP.
  10. I'm agreeing with you. All im saying is that an alternative doesnt have to be a CP, "voting negative to embrace an ethical system that etc etc" is an alternative way of viewing the world from the aff. You don't have to view it in terms of uniqueness, you are just positing a different vision from the aff that the judge can vote for. Thats different from just being on case like "TURN--AFF INCREASES BIOPOWER, THAT CAUSES EXTINCTION" sort of along the lines of what the original maker of this thread was suggesting.
  11. And you're a douchebag. What he says makes plenty of sense. Even when a K doesnt defend an "alternative" in the sense of "and our alternative text: reject biopower" you have provided some alternate way of viewing the world. For example "viewing life as valuable in and of itself" is an alternative. At the very least, you have provided an alternative framework for evaluating the debate (look at the methodology of the aff, not the political outcome) and impacted that argument (your methodology => no value to life [although I personally dont really think this is a great impact]) in order to prioritize it. Without some alternate "framing" of the debate (which some might call an alternative) the judge is literally voting for the status quo, which isn't what your authors would advocate, because you lack "uniqueness" (i.e. there is no value to life now). So you need to do something (even if all that something is is "critiquing the affirmative" or "rejecting the affirmative") in order to solve that impact. Maybe that alternative doesn't have to be "whatever being" or "rethink ontology," but you are still advocating something that isn't the status quo. could have just been sentence construction issues. I took what you said "that's what pragmatism says" to refer to "absolute truth" which would be interpreted as "pragmatism says there is an absolute truth, foucault refutes this."
  12. pragmatism rests on the idea that you can make contingent truth claims in order to create progress. it doesnt necessitate an "absolute Truth" Mr. ToC Champ.
  13. The plan happens immediately. There is not a part of the plan text which mandates that this occurs. If the negative changes the nature of how the plan is implemented, the permutation can change that for the plan. It doesn't hurt your ground because the aff can't "spike out" of a DA unless a CP introduced an element of time. Think about what you've just said. So the Delay CP is competitive? Thats a great interpretation of debate. The affirmative also defends that the plan will happen. There is not a part of the plan text which mandates certainty. If the negative introduces an element of conditionality into a CP text, it is permutable. Allowing the negative to base competition for their CP off "normal means" or implementation measures of the plan creates artifically competitive CPs because the negative gets to "create" or "fiat in" the METHOD of competition. (I.E. A Consultation, A Condition, Veto-Cheato, Line-Item Veto etc). This means aff offense vs these CPs is EXTERNAL to the plan text, which jacks affirmative predictability because the negative can always create a new form of normal means. If the affirmative writes their plan, it is reasonable for them to prepare to defend against PICs out of part of the plan, because that is a literature base that A) Actually exists as a RESPONSE to the plan and Is predictable because the affirmative gets to choose what they put in their plan. The link to fairness is clearly larger in the aff's direction--the number of arguments in the negative arsenal these days is astounding and negative strategy (unless you're abominably lazy) isn't DEPENDANT on process CPs.
  14. Thayer definitely writes cards that realism is inevitable because of evolution. He says that makes violence/power struggles/conflict inevitable. Pretty sure its in an 04/05 book, but I cant remember off the top of my head. Abe (CatSpatHat) would know.
  • Create New...