Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Good

About darkswarm

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/07/1988
  1. Does anyone have one? Just an old backfile will do. Timecube too, if someone has that.
  2. This little argument is irrelevant by now and probably should be left to die, but I can assure you that mynewhaircut is NOT Andrew Murray of Colleyville High School nor does FPS attend said high school. It's a cold day in hell when Colleyville reads Deleuze and Guattari on the affirmative (or even at all), even in a virtual debate.
  3. I'm sorry. You're just wrong. Both about who mynewhaircut is and which school FPS goes to.
  4. Someone go call the wahmbulance. It's inevitable that people will know each other on a forum created for the sake of letting debaters get to know each other. I think the partner assertion is pretty paranoid too...
  5. Because it's totally cool and not at all offensive to use homosexuality as an insult.
  6. Good round, Oversized Sophmore. Thanks for judging too, you guys. I know the round came down to T, but I was wondering what you thought about the CP or the K/case combination as other possible 2NR strategies.
  7. 2NR (1209 words) Conditionality Aff concedes conditionality is uniquely key to neg flex. He says no impact, but concedes that the 1AC sets the ground for the debate, making the negative inherently reactionary – I need a wide range of arguments and the flexibility to not go for some to check back infinite aff prep, 2AC add-ons, multiple perms, and 2AR persuasion. This is untouched offense. Concedes reasons why unconditionality is bad – no negative flexibility. Concedes that dispositionality leads to abusive planks in CPs and Ks – worse for aff ground because there’s no strategic choice but to perm when the neg writes “and feed China and India” in the text. Skew inevitable – blippy T shells. I control uniqueness on the offense. CP is the only conditional world. Squo is default. Disads/Ks aren’t worlds. I call bullshit on the T argument – it’s new. Topicality is necessary to generate predictable clash. Conditional neg arguments are still predictable and researchable– not so with non-topical affs. Aff concedes conditionality key to strategic thinking – means I access the best education for the round. Contradictions No warrant to why Langer links back. Doesn’t prove abuse on conditionality – I lose time investment either way – levels the playing ground since the aff always has the 1AC. No abuse – reject both arguments, not the team goes conceded. Topicality! Overview: Topicality outweighs every other issue – even if conditionality is bad, I only ran abusive strats because the aff made it impossible for me to have good ground. T is a necessary test of whether this round should have happened – theory and moral obligations mean nothing if I shouldn’t have had to debate this case. Don’t allow new “case outweighs T” arguments. My interpretation of PHA is the affirmative must increase treatment and/or prevention of communicable diseases. Aff instead removes a variety of political and economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, including machine parts and travel sanctions. No offensive reason to prefer the aff’s interpretations (that they don’t meet). He doesn’t go for predictability bad. New 2AR arguments make it impossible for me to win. Standards go conceded – Term of Art: Masri only says public health. Aff concedes PHA is more precise and reflective of the terms of art the government uses in defining policy. Limits – aff concedes Dawson and Verweij: Thousands of authors write that x issue is public health – this is never in context of government policy. Two implications: Neg always loses – any case from stopping war to building roads becomes topical when you accept any author’s claims that an issue is public health. Aff can stop deaths or socioeconomic problems in any way to be topical – explodes research burden and makes predictable ground impossible. Aff concedes it’s impossible to in the time constrictions of a virtual debate. I need pre-round prep. Aff allows: Military intervention in DRC conflict, building libraries, building homeless shelters Neg allows: sending ARVs (topical version of their plan), sending condoms, sending vaccinations [*]Kills education – government never uses the broad definitions of the affirmative. Limited definitions are key to education on how government PHA really works. Ground: Aff concedes an independent violation- “its” is possessive– plan’s aid is given by multilateral organizations, not the USfg. Denies me NGO CP ground - key to test necessity of USfg action. Denies corruption ground – conceded Langer that discussion on corruption is uniquely important in the context of Africa. “Link turns” like Ngugi should be negative ground. I lose politics PHA links and health policy trade-off disads because aff removes political and economic sanctions. Aff destroys core predictable ground. Line by line: 2AC 1 New African makes NO causal link between US-instituted sanctions and lack of ARVs. Prefer Bond - it’s more explicit. Sanctions don’t block humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe. Concedes plan removes travel/political sanctions (Bond). No warrant for rejecting “its” – standards were on XT. 2AC 3 Aff is on crack – Masri coincidentally uses the phrase “public health” while Schlossberg intended to define PHA for the sake of policymaking. The sentence in question defines PHA for USfg policy. Aff doesn’t meet – Masri only says ECONOMIC sanctions. Bond says political travel sanctions exist against Zimbabwe which plan removes. Links into Dawson and Verweij – cross-apply from the overview. Aff explodes limits - Masri doesn’t give a cut-off to what isn’t PHA. Assume that aff allows literally anything – he concedes it isn’t exclusive. 2AC 4 Aff severely mishandles the permutation. PHA should be treatment and/or prevention of communicable disease delivered government to government. At worst, you still need recourse to my interpretation because Montagu and Prata only define the means of delivering PHA, not the content of PHA itself. Schlossberg is the only card that speaks to that question in this round. If you let travel sanctions be PHA, there’s no limit – aff interp would allow ANY government to government action – arms sales, diplomacy – to be topical. Aff doesn’t meet: Croft and International Bar Association indicate plan sends aid to NGOs which work on the ground. 2AC 6 (Extra-topicality) Extend link – travel sanctions aren’t economic and economic sanctions aren’t T under my interpretation. Aff’s XT under every interp in this round. All I have to win is XT bad. Gut check – he got offense against a PIC out of extratopical portions – proves XT is bad. No offense – err neg. XT bad: Ground – allows aff ground like sweeping racism advantages I can’t predict and gives them link turns to criticisms like Ngugi. Kills topic-specific education – I had to discuss political sanctions and arms sales instead of PHA. Allows plan spikes like “pass x legislation” – huge potential abuse Topical version of plan proves no abuse. Explodes limits – aff gets an infinite number of new cases now – including all my neg CP ground. 2AC 7 Aff concedes no alternative – reasonability isn’t advocated. You MUST use competing interpretations to evaluate T – your only other choice is to not evaluate it which would destroy debate. No race to the bottom – extend analysis on why best limits, not most limiting is key. I still have to defend the merits of my limits for aff and neg ground. My interpretation allows a topical version of the case – see overview. Most objective – allows comparison of case lists and the education and ground provided by them. Anything else requires judge intervention. Warrants are good – aff has none for why competing interpretations isn’t objective. 2AC 9 In-Round abuse: Racism – aff claimed arms sales key to stop racism. Proves that aff solvency is contingent on removing ALL sanctions. Gave them turns to my K and CP based off non-topical actions. Potential abuse better – concedes that judges need a holistic view of what entire interpretations allow to fully evaluate T. In-round varies every round – only potential abuse stays constant and allows debaters the round-to-round predictability to control their activity. No alternative in the 2AC – don’t buy new 1AR or 2AR arguments. Precedent setting – there’s a thread where people are debating the merits of untopical cases like this one in virtual debate. Use the ballot to show them you don’t want to hear “invade the Congo” next round.
  8. 1NR (1215 words) Criticism Overview: Aff concedes descriptive arguments in Baudrillard – corporations, media, aid organizations all want to treat Africa as a spectacle of disaster to consume. No possibility of changing mindsets with plan because organizations will resist changes that aff dialogue demands. 2AC 1 1. Aff concedes Zizek. a. It’s a d-rule argument – vote neg because the aff’s representations were morally reprehensible – casting Zimbabweans as helpless. Exemplified by Cowell evidence – represents Zimbabwe as a hotbed of economic and medical ruin that can only recover through international aid. Representations limit ways we can respond and are the basis of all human violence– makes the Baudrillard impacts inevitable and turns Ngugi. This is a disad that has already happened in round. b. No link turn – people respond to symbols of Zimbaweans, not Zimbabweans themselves. Paternal representations undermine accessing Ngugi or racism because they limit ways we can experience Zimbabwe no matter what policy change is made. We retain racist mindsets while enacting meaningless policy. 2. Outweighs in the “policy realm” Impact is extinction Baudrillard 94 Artificial catastrophes, like the beneficial aspects of civlization, progress much more quickly than natural ones. The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe, the catastrophe of the third kind, deliberate and experimental. And, paradoxically, it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe - the unpredictable form of destiny - which will take us there. Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its own destiny. Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end which is uncertain or governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species. Magnitude – extinction outweighs - categorically different from all other impacts; outweighs racism – only reason given for racism bad is it leads to policies that cause death. No warrant why death from racist actions is worse than other deaths. Turns the case – moral exploitation is the pinnacle of racism – we maintain conditions of death in Africa so we may enjoy them as a spectacle. Reinforces the mindset that Africans live an inferior existence. Aff can’t access Ngugi – aid organizations and media corporations have already viewed Zimbabwe from the ground but simply choose to continue racist policy because it’s more enjoyable and profitable. 2AC 2 1. The link is more nuanced than “saying Africa bad is bad”. Langer is a real-world example of the criticism and doesn’t link back. Our moral exploitation of Zimbabwe takes the form of offering foreign aid while maintaining the essential “root causes” of suffering, ie corruption. US aid takes the form of rock concerts and trivial medical assistance that doesn’t resolve core African issues and maintains African suffering literally as a spectacle for our TV shows. Acknowledgement of corruption doesn’t link to this moral exploitation. 2. No reason to reject – at worst we both link to the reps and I win on the links to giving aid. 3. African organizations participate in charity cannibalism too – proven by their adherence to Western sanctions. 2AC 3 Plan is like treating symptoms of a disease and declaring the patient cured while the virus within ravages the body in other ways – the sanctions are a symptom of Bush’s racist ideology, and their removal is only masking that Bush continues more racist policy. Racism continues in the form of renewed moral and economic exploitation that charity organizations ignore, instead enjoying the good feelings from “helping”. Aff doesn’t get mindset fiat – no reason why discussions change Bush’s views or those of large corporations. 2AC 4 1. Still links – I isolated links to aid. 2. Intrinsic – no alt to perm. Voter for fairness: a. Ground – I lose literally all ground to disads and criticisms because the aff adds 2AC planks to solve them. “Pass x legislation.” Etc… b. Moving target – 2AC changes focus of debate and adds to plan. Kills predictability and destroys negative strategy. 2AC 5 1. Aff doesn’t access – assumes going on the ground to see Zimbabwe which doesn’t happen post-plan. 2. Answered in overview and 2AC 1 and 3. 2AC 6 Action bad – reproduces catastrophe to enjoy. In the same way the IMF creates poverty through interest-laden loans, aid to Zimbabwe sustains a corrupt regime that enacted land reform which led to the deaths of thousands. Humanitarian action is a way of harvesting catastrophe as a resource to enjoy. Cross apply case arguments – they demonstrate specific ways the criticism functions – the economic exploitation to mirror moral exploitation. 2AC 7 Treat this as a disad to the case – I don’t have to prove mindset shift because criticism turns the case and has an external extinction impact. 2AC 8 1. Won’t go for both in the 2NR. 2. Perf con isn’t an argument – negative only has burden to disprove the affirmative. I can’t go for inconsistent positions in the final rebuttal. 2AC 9 Answered above. Case 1NC 1 1. Doesn’t link back – 2AC 2. 2. Economic aid to Zimbabwe maintains the power of corrupt officials – poverty will continue unchecked as long as they remain in power. 3. It’s guilt alleviation – we can’t make African leaders listen, so we call on our government. The response is empty assistance that makes us feel better about our activism to help Africa. 1NC 3 1. I’ll take the Pepsi challenge – name a card that indicates US humanitarian aid programs are blocked by sanctions. 2. Aid programs circumvent sanctions now – conceded. 3. Only minor sanctions now – regard aff evidence with suspicion. It exaggerates to create a spectacle of Zimbabwe. 4. International Bar talks about a potential policy, not one that had been passed at time of writing. No evidence indicates it passed. 1NC 5 1. The plan uniquely introduces Zimbabwe into AGOA – causes massive exploitation worse than squo: a. Corporations create markets for themselves and siphon products and capital from Zimbabwe. b. Empirically, labor protections have been ignored, leading to more exploitation of common workers and use of sweatshops. c. Only gives short term gains to foreign industry – soon corporations will leave after ransacking Zimbabwe’s economy. Assets are controlled by corporations and will be taken with them. 2. Ngugi talks about Marxism, etc in the context of Africans deciding their own philosophy independent of any Western action – no internal from sanctions. 3. Racism answered above – exploitation continues racism in a worse form. Munford indicates uniqueness overwhelms the link – at best aff works within a racist system that co-opts the plan to exploit Zimbabwe. 4. Conceded Santos – impact is extinction. Overapplication of market laws in Africa leads to poverty because “free markets” favor large corporations at the expense of commoners. Africans lose control of modes of production to foreign investors and subsequently turn over means of livelihood. Withdrawal after resources have been sucked dry leads to the economic ruin these markets purport to remedy. 5. Turns AIDS – economic exploitation leads to conditions that make it impossible for AIDS to be properly prevented and treated – medical infrastructure is lost and standards of living become conducive to AIDS spread. 1NC 7 1. Aid given is by loaning banks – means aff perpetuates rather than solves debt. Interest laden loans create a cycle of impoverishment that makes it impossible to resume normal economic activity because all funds are used to pay interest. 2. Liberalization of the economy empirically maintains conditions of poverty. It ultimately gets co-opted for neocolonial interests that use foreign investment as a tool to control local economies to provide them products. 3. Comparatively better than aff evidence – Cowell has no warrants and no explanation is offered in the 2AC as to how aid solves economic issues.
  9. That we have been selling arms in exchange for an agreement to support the war on terror is a fact. It is also a fact that these arms are going straight to repressive regimes who are currently embroiled in conflict and use the arms to kill people. Israel does not disprove the parts of the card talking about how African countries have specifically been targeted by this kind of arms sales deal and how we are fueling conflicts between repressive governments.
  10. The public health assistance given in a USfg policy action context is limited to. In any case, it's much better than your economic sanctions evidence on the intent to define. You won't win the comparative debate on this point. No, your evidence says we're selling arms to African countries. You just underlined a random portion that said "Zimbabwe" in it. "arms are sold to regimes ''defined as undemocratic by our own State Department" No joke. There are tons of repressive regimes in Africa that we're funding just because they've stated support for our war on terror. And while we're talking about Israel, funneling arms into what is essentially the 51st state of the USA so we have support for raping the natural resources of the rest of the region is pretty bad as well...In any case, our arms sales policy has been informed by racist intentions and ulterior motives.
  11. The definitions we read don't make competing claims. We can accept both at the same time as a new interpretation to use. If you make args that that's bad then I'll argue that your definition cannot be understood without mine. The card literally starts off with "public health assistance is limited to." It's defining PHA in a policy context. I don't know how much more explicit you could get about defining something. WPI and SN both indicate that we have sanctions against selling arms to Zimbabwe. Thus they aren't sold. And thus arms from the US are not getting to Zimbabwe. a. It doesn't use that rhetoric, but it's pretty clear that the only reason we give them arms is because they support our war on terror. These are nations that have been denounced by our State Department as repressive regimes. b. Dude, we're fueling African conflict and treating it as inconsequential just because these nations are committed to the war on terror. How is elevating our interests above theirs to the point that we're willing to make them kill each other so we can have our foreign policy NOT racist? c. These are all countries that we dislike and have labeled as repressive - that's just a sign that we're willing to sacrifice commitment to stuff like democracy for the sake of our war on terror. We'd give Zimbabwe guns then tell them to support our war. It's worked for the rest of the repressive regimes in Africa the US has sold arms to.
  12. 2NC (2009 Words) TOPICALITY 2AC 1 1. Sanctions don’t block ARVs. Cross-apply Bond. No sanctions by Western countries prohibit humanitarian aid. Aff only has cards referring to sanctions placed by independent organizations. 2. Conceded evaluate plan text in a vacuum – text says removing sanctions which spans other forms of non-PHA policy. Plan effects are outside judge jurisdiction else any aff that prevents death is topical. 3. Even if you don’t view text in a vacuum, they aren’t USfg assistance – Dictionary.com its - the possessive form of it. Croft and International Bar Association evidence indicates NGO and multilateral aid is given. 2AC 2 Prefer our definition – refers to policy enacted by the USfg. International definitions assume WHO and other non-state actors. US gives PHA in the resolution. 2AC 3 1. No intent to define – only our evidence makes it clear that it’s a working definition of PHA to be used in enacting policy. Their evidence coincidentally uses the words “public health”. 2. Only our evidence defines PHA entirely – their evidence assumes other actions on public health, not PHA. PHA is a term of art with restricted definitions in regards to policy. 3. Unlimits – concedes Dawson and Verweij: Limitless human activities harm public health – aff legitimates stopping war, building homes, and stopping cigarette exports. Renders the term meaningless for policy which is conceded. Destroys education – only my interp accesses learning about the way USfg given PHA functions. 4. Aff doesn’t meet – cross-apply Bond: plan removes sanctions on travel from Zimbabwe – these sanctions aren’t economic. Real abuse has occurred – they capture racism advantages by allowing Zimbabwean leaders freedom of movement internationally. I couldn’t get offense against this. 5. Double bind – either his definition is exclusive and only economic sanctions are topical which limits out disease cases and makes them extratopical or its not exclusive and allows for an infinite number of cases because it doesn’t specify what the limit to what PHA is. 2AC 4 1. They don’t meet – cross-apply number 3 on 2AC 1. 2. Perm the interpretations; extend Schlosburg– PHA is only disease treatment and prevention given government to government. Aff interp only defines means of PHA, not its content. Requires recourse to my definition or else the actions of PHA remain unlimited. Any action through governments becomes topical. 2AC 5 1. Is this a joke? 2. Predictable limits key to in-depth education – stable topic is the only way we’d develop an understanding of in-depth literature on the topic. Aff limits me to the research I can crank out in 48 hours instead of the understanding of the topic I’ve built up all year. Only access to topic-specific education – aff destroys ability to learn about ways USfg could increase PHA to Africa. 3. Overlimiting better than underlimiting – keeps the best deep topic where neg strats and affs evolve through continuous research that gives us a better understanding of the topic. 4. Key to fairness – aff sets the ground for the debate and could run a huge college file from this year they get from an older sibling and neg will have no preparation for it. Gut check: No way for the neg to be prepared for infinite cases – which aff concedes they allow. Destroys my predictable ground for China DA, politics with PHA links, and health trade-off disads. You try to put together a full new DA file in 48 hours with school and life. 5. No brightline to amount of unpredictability allowed – I don’t care what Towson did, affs with plan text “racism is bad” are impossible to debate against. Aff doesn’t provide a way to limit that out. 6. Non-unique – quick thinking can happen with topical but quirky affirmatives. Cleaner blood transfusions, neglected tropical diseases, etc all capture this while remaining topical. 7. Aff concedes Dawson and Verweij – predictable limits on public health are key to retaining its meaning for better policy education. 2AC 6 1. Aff concedes link to extra-T – allows import of oil, machine parts, etc and frees movement of Zimbabwean leaders. These allow unique unpredictable advantages like changing racist mindsets about Zimbabwe. Aff also uses NGOs. 2. Extra-T isn’t good: a. More links aren’t predictable – only good neg ground is resolutionally predictable. I wouldn’t have done preparation for your extratopical planks. b. Congress wouldn’t reject a non-topical plan either – doesn’t mean being extra-T is good for debate. c. No offense – there’s a topical version of their plan that only removes sanctions on disease treatment and prevention. 3. Extra-T is bad and a voter for fairness and education: a. That’s my ground – all their extratopical portions are my CP ground. NGO CP is key to test the necessity of USfg action in the resolution. b. Unpredictable – I can’t get links off of plan planks like “and feed India” which is unfair – I have no literature against those advantages. c. Kills topic-specific education – shifts debate to something that isn’t PHA. d. Kills link ground – extra-topicality justifies plan planks that spike out of disads. Nuking China or passing my ‘tix bill probably takes out my disad. e. Justifies affs that solve every problem on Earth – aff always wins. f. Real in-round abuse: Aff claimed that only removing all sanctions, including ones unrelated to public health, can solve racism. Aff garnered offense on the non-topical sanction I PIC’d out of. Stopping the arms blockade is a key aff internal link to solving racism which is extratopical ground. 2AC 7 1. Aff poses no alternative. Don’t let him defend reasonability in the 1AR – it’d be new. Even if competing interpretations is bad, it’s the only method of evaluating topicality offered in this round. 2. Question isn’t most limiting – it’s best limits. My interp allows multiple methods of treating or preventing multiple diseases – condoms, direct ARV aid, immunizations, antibiotics, etc – no warrant for only limiting out his case. 3. Only objective standard – competing interps key to prevent judge intervention on what is “reasonable” which undermines debaters’ control of the topic. We should control the ground of our discussions. 4. Only way to focus research and clash – otherwise negatives won’t know what to research and prepare for. 5. Aff’s not reasonable anyway. Demonstrates arbitrariness of reasonability. 2AC 8 1. Ridiculous – it’s a constructive. These aren’t new: T is a voter for in-round and potential abuse and all the reasons below “vote negative” in the shell. 2. Uniquely sets a precedent – there’s a debate going on in another thread about what the predictable limits should be in a virtual debate. Use the ballot as a tool to ensure it stays sane – I don’t want to debate “invade China” next round and you sure don’t want to judge it. 3. Potential abuse is the only objective standard to evaluate topicality in – the judge is voting for a vision of what the topic encompasses. It’s impossible to judge if one case alone is good or bad without looking to see if there’s a preferable holistic view of the topic which includes it. Requires evaluation of potential abuse. 4. In-round abuse is subjective and varies round to round – prefer potential abuse first. 5. Aff poses no alternative – potential abuse is the only standard for evaluating interpretations on topicality given in this round. COUNTERPLAN Overview: There’s only one piece of offense on this flow – it’s that racism will continue if not all sanctions are removed. However, aff concedes that racism continues post plan meaning one sanction out of many is miniscule in contributing to racism. Any risk of the net benefit with a tangible African conflict impact will outweigh: 1. Magnitude: war causes more deaths – aff can’t quantify the difference in deaths caused by racism with or without the arms sales sanction. 2. Turns the case – US arms sales are used to further the war on terror and treat nations as pawns for our foreign policy. The US knowingly causes warfare in Africa to support its war – infinitely more racist than sanctions. Aslam 05 (Abid, US Selling More Weapons to Undemocratic Regimes That Support 'War on Terror', May 25, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-04.htm) The United States has ramped up arms sales to some of the world's most repressive and undemocratic regimes in a misguided attempt to bolster counter-terrorism efforts since the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, says a new report from leading arms trade researchers. The report, from the Arms Trade Resource Center at New York-based New School University's World Policy Institute, says increased weapons sales and grants have been used to reward countries that have either joined what the White House calls its ''war on terror'' or have backed the U.S. administration's military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States ranks top among the world's arms exporters and in developing countries, a majority of its arms are sold to regimes ''defined as undemocratic by our own State Department,'' says the study released Wednesday. The study acknowledges that the increased weapons transfers are aimed at rewarding coalition partners and ensuring continued U.S. military access to overseas bases. But in the long run, it adds, the strategy risks undermining--not enhancing--U.S. security. ''Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the 'war of ideas' in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda,'' the report says. ''In all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda,'' it adds. ''At a minimum, the time has come to impose greater scrutiny on U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs,'' the report concludes. ''The facile assumption that they are simply another tool in the foreign policy toolbox, to be used to win friends and intimidate adversaries as needed, must be challenged in this new era in U.S. security policy.'' The United States transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world, according to the report. Between 1992 and 2003, the last year for which complete data are available, it sold $177.5 billion in arms to foreign nations. ''In 2003 alone, the Pentagon and State Department delivered or licensed the delivery of $5.7 billion in weaponry to countries which can ill afford advanced weaponry--nations in the developing world saddled with debt and struggling with poverty,'' the study says. ''Despite having some of the world's strongest laws regulating the arms trade, almost half of these weapons went to countries plagued with ongoing conflict and governed by undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records,'' it adds. In 2003, for example, $2.7 billion in weaponry went to governments branded as ''undemocratic'' by the State Department. U.S. programs are supplying arms to 18 of 25 countries embroiled in ''active conflicts,'' or warfare against domestic or foreign foes, the study says. These include Angola, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Israel, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Additionally, U.S. arms transfers to Uzbekistan--where at least 169 anti-government demonstrators were killed last week--''exemplify the negative consequences of arming repressive regimes,'' it says. (69) 2AC 1 Perm still links – CP text doesn’t put arms sales sanctions back in place. Enacting the entirety of 1AC plan text still removes those. 2AC 2 Only risk of offense here – you still vote neg. Bush would jump at the opportunity to add another pawn to his war on terror. Private companies still want to make profits – they’ll sell arms prohibited now. 2AC 3 Banning the export of arms to Zimbabwe is the very definition of an economic sanction. Sanctions on arms sales now SN, 3/10 (Scrips News, "Zimbabwe: The Land of Plenty of Nothing," March 10 2008, http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/31364) Sanctions, such as they are, target arms imports and the international travels of Zimbabwe's rulers, not its economy. And the commercial farmers lost their land largely as a result of their own doing, their refusal to share holdings -- 70 percent of arable land held by 1 percent of the population -- conferred on them by Zimbabwe's before-independence, racist colonial legislators. (14) 2AC 4 Answered in overview. We give Israel arms to maintain a racist war against the rest of the Middle East. Only reason racism is bad is it leads to more deaths – my impacts are the tangible version of his abstract racism impacts. 2AC 5 This refers to 1999, before sanctions were placed. The word “sanctions” isn’t even in the card… 2AC 6 US arms sales are key – extend WPI: it’s not a question of numbers of arms – it’s about the responsibility the US has to decrease conflict in the region, not fuel it. Captures their racism arguments. That’s irrelevant—regardless of numbers, US arms sales empirically provided the strongest support for internal conflicts WPI, 2k (World Policy Institute, a non-partisan source of informed policy leadership for more than four decades, develops and champions innovative policies that require a progressive and global point of view. “U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War,” January, http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm) Defenders of the Clinton administration’s policy toward the provision of arms and training to African military forces point out that the United States is not the primary supplier of weaponry to the region, and that in any case U.S. military programs in Africa are designed to promote peacekeeping and professionalism, not proliferation and war. As we discuss below, whatever their intention may be, skills and equipment provided by the U.S. have strengthened the military capabilities of combatants involved in some of Africa’s most violent and intractable conflicts. (40) 2AC 7 Out of context – sentence about the US refers to other African countries. Only risk an expansion of arms trade to Zimbabwe uniquely promotes more conflict. At worst, I have a linear disad. 2AC 8 Defense: No alternative – unconditionality kills negative flexability and dispositionality is worse – makes the neg write abusive planks into texts to force a perm. Skew worse in this world Only one conditional world checks abuse. Aff conditionality is bad – 1AC sets ground for rest of the ground. Neg conditionality justified due to reactionary nature of the side. Skew inevitable. I could have run my 30 word OSPEC shell or 8 T violations. 8 minutes of offense against the squo checks back [*]Offense: Neg flex – aff sets ground for debate; neg is inherently reactionary. Only way for me to check back infinite prep, new advantages, and 2AR persuasion. Education – only way to allow creative strats; only way to guarantee depth of negative argument in 2NR which is key to education. Strategic thinking – forces aff to make only their best arguments and choose wisely. Key to check back multiple perms. Debate should be hard – forces people to do research and work harder. 2AC 9 Links back to K is irrelevant. Won’t go for both. Defense: You wrote your plan to include all sanctions. Defend it. Counter-interpretation: I can PIC out of extratopical portions – key to check back and/or prove abuse from extratopical planks. Every CP is a PIC on this topic – most are agent CPs. NBs check abuse – get turns. At best, reject the arg not the debater. I lose the CP which is enough to make up for any skew. PIC isn’t topical – still removes political sanctions. [*]Offense: Key to neg offense – otherwise I’m stuck defending “racism good” Best captures search for best policy option. Forces intelligent plan writing – improves the aff and forces research on the entire aff. More in-depth education – we learn more about the intricacies of the topic and can advance our understanding of it.
  • Create New...