Jump to content

Screech

Member
  • Content Count

    853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Screech

  1. Hey, I didn't say that. I was saying that just because it's a systemic problem doesn't make it intrinsic to the activity.
  2. There's always the Krauthammer internal link turn. 1NC Shell Page 1 / 2 1. Even tokenistic appeasement to outside powers with multilateralism risks permanently destroying American leadership Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer-prize winner, ’03 (National Interest, Winter ‘02/’03, Online, Nexis, accessed 3/15/05) If the concern about the new unilateralism is that American assertiveness be judiciously rationed, and that one needs to think long-term, it is hard to disagree. One does not go it alone or dictate terms on every issue. On some issues such as membership in and support of the WTO, where the long-term benefit both to the American national interest and global interests is demonstrable, one willingly constricts sovereignty. Trade agreements are easy calls, however, free trade being perhaps the only mathematically provable political good. Others require great skepticism. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, would have harmed the American economy while doing nothing for the global environment. (Increased emissions from China, India and Third World countries exempt from its provisions would have more than made up for American cuts.) Kyoto failed on its merits, but was nonetheless pushed because the rest of the world supported it. Thecase was made for the chemical and biological weapons treaties - sure, they are useless or worse, but why not give in there in order to build good will for future needs? But appeasing multilateralism does not assuage it; appeasement merely legitimizes it. Repeated acquiescence to provisions that America deems injurious reinforces the notion that legitimacy derives from international consensus, thus undermining America's future freedom of action - and thus contradicting the pragmatic realists' own goals. same America must be guided by its independent judgment, both about its own interest and about the global interest. Especially on matters of national security, war-making and the deployment of power, America should neither defer nor contract out decision-making, particularly when the concessions involve permanent structural constrictions such as those imposed by an International Criminal Court. Prudence, yes. No need to act the superpower in East Timor or Bosnia. But there is a need to do so in Afghanistan and in Iraq. No need to act the superpower on steel tariffs. But there is a need to do so on missile defense. The prudent exercise of power allows, indeed calls for, occasional concessions on non-vital issues if only to maintain psychological good will. Arrogance and gratuitous high-handedness are counterproductive. But we should not delude ourselves as to what psychological good will buys. Countries will cooperate with us, first, out of their own self-interest and, second, out of the need and desire to cultivate good relations with the world's superpower. Warm and fuzzy feelings are a distant third. Take counterterrorism. After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Yemen did everything it could to stymie the American investigation. It lifted not a finger to suppress terrorism. This was under an American administration that was obsessively accommodating and multilateralist. Today, under the most unilateralist of administrations, Yemen has decided to assist in the war on terrorism. This was not a result of a sudden attack of good will toward America. It was a result of the war in Afghanistan, which concentrated the mind of heretofore recalcitrant states like Yemen on the costs of non-cooperation with the United States. Coalitions are not made by superpowers going begging hat in hand. They are made by asserting a position and inviting others to join. What "pragmatic" realists often fail to realize is that unilateralism is the high road to multilateralism. When George Bush senior said of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, "this will not stand", and made it clear that he was prepared to act alone if necessary, that declaration - and the credibility of American determination to act unilaterally - in and of itself created a coalition. Hafez al-Asad did not join out of feelings of good will. He joined because no one wants to be left at the dock when the hegemon is sailing. Unilateralism does not mean seeking to act alone. One acts in concert with others if possible. Unilateralism simply means that one does not allow oneself to be hostage to others. No unilateralist would, say, reject Security Council support for an attack on Iraq. The nontrivial question that separates unilateralism from multilateralism-and that tests the "pragmatic realists"-is this: What do you do if, at the end of the day, the Security Council refuses to back you? Do you allow yourself to be dictated to on issues of vital national-and international-security? When I first proposed the unipolar model in 1990, I suggested that we should accept both its burdens and opportunities and that, if America did not wreck its economy, unipolarity could last thirty or forty years. That seemed bold at the time. Today, it seems rather modest. The unipolar moment has become the unipolar era. It remains true, however, that its durability will be decided at home. It will depend largely on whether it isseen as a burden to be shed - either because we are too good for the world (the isolationist critique) or because we are not worthy of it (the liberal internationalist critique). welcomed by Americans or 1NC Shell Page 2 / 2 2. US leadership is the only way to prevent global nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, senior policy analyst for the RAND corporation, ‘95 (The Washington Quarterly, Spring, Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84, Online, Nexis, accessed 3/7/05) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Uniqueness US alliances and prestige are strong in the status quo Roland Watson, staff writer, ’04 (The Times of London, Nov. 10, Online, Nexis, accessed 3/15/05) European capitals at loggerheads with the United States during Mr Bush's first term have used his re-election to issue public calls for increased transatlantic co-operation. Gerhard Schroder, the German Chancellor, used a congratulatory telephone call to Mr Bush to pave the way for smoother relations. Herr Schroder saidthat US-German relations were "fully intact". that he and Mr Bush had agreed to look forward, and President Chirac finally congratulated Mr Bush by telephone yesterday, days after most foreign leaders. He said that he hoped for stronger Franco-American relations, but the French leader had already risked irritating Washington by telling European Union ministers that it was essential for Europe to "strengthen its unity and dynamism when faced with this great world power". Michel Barnier, the French Foreign Minister, suggested that a working group of independent personalities from both sides of the Atlantic be formed to explore ways of improving US-European dialogue. He also suggested that the quartet the US, United Nations, European Union and Russia -take on issues besides the Middle East peace process. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish Socialist Prime Minister, yesterday guardedly extended an olive branch. "I would like to see deepening co operation between Europe and the United States, which is essential to peace and security in the world," he told Der Spiegel. "Spaniards believe that the world is better off when the United States and Europe co-operate and depend on one another." Uniqueness US prestige is high in the status quo – world leaders respect the US despite unilateralism The Guardian Feb. 19 ’05 (l/n) Europeans will be watching and listening closely when George Bush arrives in the old continent tomorrow. There is weighty symbolism in the fact that the president's first foreign trip of his second term takes him across the Atlantic. Dinner with Jacques Chirac and talks with Gerhard Schroder will bring him face to face with the bitterest European critics of the Iraq war. But the message he is bearing is one of dialogue and diplomacy - the themes that have already been highlighted by his new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on her recent fence-mending trip. The mood on this side of the pond is warily optimistic. European governments have been accentuating the positive, faute de mieux , sinceBush's re-election. They recognise sensibly that there is no point going on about how much they wanted a John Kerry victory. Bush II is with us all for the next four years and there are some extremely thorny issues on the global agenda. Best, in that case, to work out how they can be tackledby the US and Europe, the two wings of an old but nowadays very unequal alliance. Mr multilaterally Timing, location and detail mean a lot when a US president travels abroad. With no disrespect to the Belgians, he would hardly be bothering to head their way if Brussels was not home to two important international institutions. Mr Bush has been to Nato before. Never before though has any American president visited the headquarters of the European Union. That is being seen, perhaps with some justification, as a sign that the US does now want to see Europe as Europe aspires to be: a more effective global actor - not so disunited that neocon unilateralists can cherry-pick willing allies like Poland, Britain and Italy and freeze out those Donald Rumsfeld sneered at as "old" Europeans. The EU is already an equal partner for the US in global trade and economic clout; but it has a long way to go before it can begin to match America in military strength, power projection or diplomatic muscle. It is in these areas that the transatlantic gap is still painfully wide and on these that people of goodwill on both sides need to see progress if that wary optimism is to be justified. The success of the Iraqi elections has convinced few Europeans that the war most of them opposed was a good idea; or that regime change, in Iran, Syria or other countries Mr Bush now calls "outposts of tyranny", should follow. There is however growing recognition that it is time to move on. Even France and Germany are likely to agree to boost training for Iraq's fledgling security forces - their contribution to the stability that is in everyone's interest. There are hopes too for movement on Israel-Palestine, but Europeans will need to be far more certain than they are at present that Mr Bush is not acquiescing in Ariel Sharon's hopes of holding on to most of the West Bank once he has evacuated Gaza. It is hard to see a way forward on Iran, where even if Washington's tone has softened, there is little enthusiasm for Europe's preference for diplomacy to persuade Tehran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions. But it will take two to perform this very difficult tango: Europeans may have to be prepared to get tougher too. Nor is it clear how the row over lifting the EU arms embargo on China will be resolved. Europeans have given up hope that the US will ever embrace the international criminal court they hold so dear. Mr Bush has signalled that he may have something new to say about climate change, despite his refusal to sign the Kyoto global warming treaty. Brussels would be a great place to announce even a modest green downpayment on the transatlantic dialogue that everyone agrees Europe, America - and the entire world - so urgently needs.
  3. Screech

    Real World

    How about an internal link turn - I'm so overwhelmingly ugly that people stare at me without wanting to. This causes them to listen to me while they're looking at me.
  4. I see your point, but this still doesn't mean that erotic films are sexist. It means that the market creates an incentive for sexism. The actual act of being in a porn movie or watching a porn movie isn't inherently sexist or oppressive towards women. I direct you to my earlier analogy: just because (almost exclusively) rich, white men play golf doesn't mean that golf is a sexist, classist, or racist activity. It's just a sport, and (theoretically) will only ever be just a sport. An example of an actually out-and-out sexist or racist activity would be playing "penis tag," "cowboys and indians", or joining your local KKK. There aren't many activities that are actually racist at their core - only ones that have barriers attached to them artificially by society.
  5. Wrong. The official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. T US = Mexico is americocentric.
  6. http://ceda-ndt.uchicago.edu/hellaprep/ATst8ism.pdf
  7. Screech

    Real World

    Exactly? So why even waste your time setting up this argument and give people links to their crtiques? I would just run fem (appearance-focus hits women doubly hard, which is objectifying + dehumanizing) or make up a K on the spot.
  8. I beg to differ. Mocking peoples' moral codes can be quite effective in exposing the flaws in their reasoning or beliefs. Even if you think mocking to be counterproductive, it's still better to challenge their ideas (not the policies they enact, that's like treating the symptoms rather than the disease) than to let them do whatever they want.
  9. Screech

    Real World

    It's an advantage, not a plan text. And I still think that it will get you nowhere strategically. Say they concede your framework, sure you may get some good solvency. But it won't really get you anywhere as far as actual arguments in the round go - they just have to link turn or impact turn your other advantages, and then claim that you're really effective in getting bad shit to happen. Your "real-world activism" is only good if you're being active for plans that are beneficial, and if they can win a K or a disad, your plan isn't beneficial in the first place. It really ends up just being arrogant and a waste of time.
  10. All you Oregon/southern Washington CX/public debate teams with novices and no way to bring them up to speed - please consider the Northern Oregon Cooperative camp, taking place at PSU! DEBATE CAMP The Northern Oregon Cooperative held a four-day, multi-format debate camp at PSU this week. The camp was a phenomenal success: we hosted 40 students from 10 different programs, and coaches from another two, all on their winter break. We provided instruction, assistance, materials, lesson plans, and ideas, not to mention plenty of great food and an open atmosphere. We asked students to anonymously evaluate the camp: the overall, average satisfaction was 8.2 out of 10 , and no student ranked his or her satisfaction as less than 5. We had a little trouble with the snow: we had to cancel Monday and extend one day at the end. Otherwise, there were no problems. We had a lot of fun. The NOC has already begun planning its next camp in August '06 (tentatively, the 21st-24th or the 28th-31st). Our previous experiences of the past two camps have shown we run a tight ship at a minimum cost; we'd like you to encourage your students and colleagues to attend. We will secure a good price on a local hotel for non-commuters. There are two things we'd like you to keep in mind: 1. For every two paying students, you can bring one adult for free. Bring assistant coaches. Bring parents to help them become good judges. Bring teachers from a neighboring school without a debate program! If you know someone who might be interested in starting a team at his or her school, we want them at the camp. Please help the Oregon debate community thrive by spreading the word now. 2. We had to turn people away because they waited until the last minute. Please don't wait! We want to have you join us. The registration deadline will probably be the first week of August. We've decided that we'll offer two divisions at the summer camp: - The novice division will cover all debate formats. It is appropriate for any student, grades 7-12, with 6 or fewer tournaments experience in debate, as well as any adult who wishes to learn more about debate. - The intermediate division will cover the CX format only. It is appropriate for three kinds of students: a) students with more than 6 tournaments but less than a full year of CX experience, students with any amount of experience in another format who wish to switch to CX (or pick up new skills), and c) students who are about to go to college, have debated in high school public, and wish to participate in college parliamentary debate (which is quickly becoming very much like high school CX). Both camps are NOT appropriate for students with a full year or more of CX experience. We'd recommend the excellent summer institutes at regional colleges -- for example, Gonzaga, Whitman, and UO -- for these students. Here's what we'll cover during the novice camp (all formats): Day 1 - Logic and critical thinking skills Day 2 - Speaking skills, case writing Day 3 - Debating skills (e.g., flowing) Day 4 - Practice debates / Teacher-Coach workshop Here's what we'll cover during the intermediate camp (CX-only): Days 1-3 - Nine fully critiqued practice debates Day 4 - Advanced debate theory lectures As a participant in the intermediate camp, you'll receive the resolution we'll be using for the practice debates, all your evidence, and the textbook a week or two before the camp begins. We ask that you register with a debate partner; if you have none, we'll assign one to you. If you would like to request a registration form, then please email russellhanes[AT]gmail[DOT]com for one.
  11. Huh? What the hell is "suprafiat" (ggamer)?
  12. Screech

    A2 Gift K

    Well, there's all the cards he wrote saying the opposite of what the neg is trying to say... I'll send you the GDI file, which contains 30-40 pages of decent aff answers. Email: bitmapverse[|at|]gmail[|dot|]com
  13. Is it "if dems get the strength for a filibuster, the Republicans will use the nuclear option, destroying democracy"?
  14. Screech

    A2 Gift K

    Which one article? The two authors from GDI were Arrigo and Willims 00 and Khan 94.
  15. For some reason, the phrase "mutually abusive" seems like an oxymoron...maybe it's just me.
  16. I'm sorry, but how does this equate to sexism? The population of males, females or minorities in an activity does not mean that a given activity is sexist or racist. It means that participation in that activity on the part of that group is generally rare. An activity can only be "sexist" if structural barriers exist to exclude women or men. And while for the example of football this may be true, porn exists for men and women. Just because there's (arguably) a smaller market for female-focused porn doesn't mean that it's inherently sexist. Men and women can both enjoy porn. Besides, there are no exclusionary attributes that can be associated with activities unless the activity itself is structured against a certain group. For example, women are forced into a segregated basketball league, the WNBA. Thus, professional basketball is sexist. But golf isn't racist just because golf clubs often exclude minorities; that just means that a lot of racist people play golf. Similarily, porn doesn't structurally exclude or oppress women, and so isn't sexist. But porn is centered around a lot of sexist people.
  17. Just find a test case. Or you could change your plan text to sua sponte. But better: -Cards saying there are almost always test cases that can be ruled on to decide anything at all, almost like sua sponte -Potential abuse isn't a voter (you should have plenty of blocks for this) -Switch your actor to Congress. Seriously, the courts aren't worth the hassle. First, they link to all the court bad disads (judicial legitimacy, judicial activism, hollow hope) and the critical arguments (CLS, CRT). Second, they almost certainly link to politics - the perception of Roberts and Alito by the public is certain to determine the perception of Bush. After all, he nominated them.
  18. Who's demanding a card to prove that? It seems pretty obvious. They're executive agencies, and Bush is the head of the executive branch.
  19. I agree. Christianity is supposed to be a religion based on oppenness and acceptance. The church, despite all its flaws, seems to finally be acknowledging that. Not that Mahoney's views represent the views of the Vatican. We have yet to see their reaction to this stance.
  20. Damn. Hoisted on my own petard.
  21. Maybe executive power good. But that's kind of a bad argument, at least with the evidence you get in camp files. Cut the cards yourself if you want to run it. Make it into a kind of "congressional deference disad." You'll be miles ahead on the uniqueness debate.
  22. What is "western orientation"? Just using the USFG?
  23. ...and this comes as a surprise? Where have you been for the last few decades?
×
×
  • Create New...