Jump to content

Umbrella Leaf

Member
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Good

About Umbrella Leaf

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Vikram Kohli

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think this analogy's kinda strained -- the teams reading NIB affs with well-written plan texts probably shouldn't have had much trouble with PICs, and I never really understood what PIC ground the NIB aff provided tbh. I guess this is also true for the Cuban embargo -- my guess is that a lot of teams will be reading affs to remove a certain part of the Cuban embargo and base their aff solely off of those areas (the aff that comes to mind is removal of travel restrictions on Cuban scientists / increasing US-Cuba academic exchanges, or something of the sort). I agree that affs with plans just like "REMOVE THE CUBAN EMBARGO" make themselves super vulnerable to PICs out of certain parts of the embargo --- I also doubt that most affirmative teams reading this affirmative will unnecessarily defend totally getting rid of the Embargo by writing their plan text to be super vague and vacuous (eg the horrible "nearly all" plan texts being read on the military topic to avoid PICs out of specific types of presence). And... maybe that's a good thing, since the other thing about these PICs is that I honestly doubt there is a solvency advocate for "REMOVE THE WHOLE CUBAN EMBARGO EXCEPT CIGARS." I know nobody votes on PICs bad and blah blah malarkey, but seriously I don't understand why it's okay that the neg having a card which says "x part of your aff is bad" = "solvency advocate for a PIC." That just seems to be a ridiculous standard which justifies all sorts of stupid stuff. So, in other words -- "Counter-interp; read your PIC with a solvency advocate / Not having a solvency advocate makes life hell for the affirmative because nothing is predictable / this could've easily been read as a DA and we'd crush you because our aff outweighs the Smoking Bad DA or whatever the hell the net benefit to the CP is. Solves all yo offense." Having some "Smoking Bad" cards, or even "Cuban Cigars Bad" shouldn't be enough to read the PIC out of cuban cigars is i guess what i'm saying. And I might be wrong and there is totally sweet evidence defending some of these PIC args; i'll admit i have not done that much research but I have looked around a bit and haven't found any. ...this post has like nothing to do with Venezuela, but oh well lol
  2. How about keeping restrictions on agricultural exports? Having Cuba flooded by crazy agribusinesses doesn't seem that great ]:
  3. Bumping -- i'm sorry i haven't 2NRd yet, AP week is hard ]: will be up by next weekend
  4. 1NR -- https://www.dropbox.com/s/xpoojzin7glpej3/1nr%20vdebate%205-2.docx
  5. Barges are not ships. MARITECH does not do anything for waterways, no. The plan does not build barges, but Inland Waterways (which is what the aff defends) leads to transportation of freight ON barges, which is what we're saying is bad. Barges can't be used in the squo cuz waterways aren't good enough; the aff allows them to be used.
  6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/72w9r1zqmoe02j1/2nc%20vdebate%204-28.docx Econ, Navy, CP
  7. 1AC -- USFG should invest in Waterways. 1NC -- Invest in MARITECH, which is a program for investing in SHIPS and stimulating the SHIPBUILDING industry, not development of waterways. Explain how the CP results in development of WATERWAYS. You say that private investors would not get on board for the CP. (1) MARITECH is a matching grants program and its SOLE purpose is to INCENTIVIZE shipbuilding -- explain why private investors wouldn't get on board, (2) Why is private investment key. You say hegemony solves structural violence -- the warrant for this is that free markets and globalization lead to development of poor countries. The US has empirically FORCED self-sufficient developing countries to import stuff and open up to things like downright evil agribusinesses. How have globalization and hegemony helped poor countries? What's short sea shipping?
  8. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7gsu8iqmfxxnbqq/1nc%20vdebate.docx
  9. What would econ engagement process CPs sever out of...? The usual "should / resolved / hur hur hur we'll define the words in the rez nobody cares about" strat doesn't fly so much this year since there are actually debates about whether or not econ engagement policies can be done through conditions / Quid-pro-quos and whatnot which impede the ability of the... i dunno, Smoking Conditions CP, to be as successful. obviously this speaks more to conditions CPs and the like than to econ engagement specific process CPs --- I guess my problem is that I have no idea what these process CPs would sound like and what makes them different than the aff (ie why does p/ CP sever). I feel like it's tough to stick the aff to normal means claims with a term as broad as "economic engagement" which can mean a bunch of things X___X best idea i can think of is the following (this doesn't solve Cuba embargo, removal of restrictions affs doe ]: )--- the aff is Unilateral US engagement, the CP is US doing multilateral engagement in latin america along with... i dunno, China or something. Net benefit is obviduh the China Crowd-out Bad DA (that's a thing probably since China's doing a bunch of stuff in latin america at the moment as far as i know). CP competes --- p/ cp probably slays it but I guess you could find a definition of econ engagement / engagement as unilateral, and the rez also says its which means there's some reason to believe the aff shouldn't be allowed to defend multilateral engagement. haven't thought through this post very well and am rather tired --- will post more thoughts later.
  10. Cp: 1) Statuts? Dispositional. 2) What is Net-Centric railroading and Maritech? Net-centric railroading is use of Intelligent Transportation Systems to improve capacity and efficiency of rail. MARITECH is an old government program which required the government to match shipbuilding industry investment in new ships; reinstatement would stimulate shipbuilding. 3) Where in the Ditmeyer card does it say anything about solving congestion? braking systems, grade crossings, defect detection, and planning and scheduling systems. These technologies can prevent collisions and overspeed accidents, prevent hijackings and runaways, increase capacity and asset utilization, increase reliability, improve service to customers, improve energy efficiency and emissions, increase economic viability and profits, and enable railways to measure and control costs and to “manage the unexpected.†...The uniqueness argument for the capacity arguments is that other transportation systems are at capacity now. The CP solves that by adding capacity to squo transportation systems. 4) How is Tracy at all qualified to talk about whales? What makes her special? a.) Your Margaronis evidence, Cooper evidence, Munoz evidence and (oh god) BEARDEN EVIDENCE are just as unqualified. I agree that Tracy's a staff writer, but you can't hold us to a certain evidentiary standard without conceding your whole aff (: b.) She cites data from the construction of Cape Wind, which is an Offshore wind farm currently put in place --- means it cites empirical data proves that increases in wind power devastate marine mammals. DA 1) Are the Coast Guard and navy at all related? Yes. 2) Why is the coast Gaurd Key to preventing drug access? Mongabay indicates that drug traffickers from Columbia are using submarines to ship cocaine into the US -- Revkin ev says that interdiction of those falls under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Econ 1) In Lutes 10, can i have a warrant from the card stating trade collapse? If we do not have the containers to transport things across the country, we can't move things around the country anymore. Trade collapse is inevitable at the point at which the wonderful waterways you build are unable to ship things. 2) Why is dollar hedge key to anything? I don't think we talked about dollar heg? You have read evidence which says that the US needs to be the leader of the global economy. We have reasons why the plan does the opposite. Navy 1) what is asymetry? Our argument is that other countries will use non-conventional means of warfare to disrupt US warfighting (specifically things like space weapons, ASBMs and cyberattacks to destroy the US navy). 2) So ignore the fries cards? Yes. 3) How does reducing naval presence solve peacekeeping in middle east? Bandow indicates that empirically multilateral cooperative relationships and a shift away from unilateral deterrence solves best --- reduction of US naval power allows for Middle Eastern regionalism which is the only way to create cooperative relationships without making countries like Iran freaked out about the US shoving the Fifth Fleet down their throats. Thats it for now
  11. this makes some sense --- i guess my question was less what the net benefit was and more why "Permutation do CP" doesn't get rid of these CPs. Unless we're talking about non-economic engagement, in which case it makes sense.
×
×
  • Create New...