Jump to content

policy14CX

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-2 Slipping...

About policy14CX

  • Rank
    Varsity
  1. Also looking for this
  2. Fosho 2/6, “Canada: Vancouver Shipyard Builds CCGS Icebreaker,†http://www.industrialmarinepower.com/-3-1844-canada-vancouver-shipyard-builds-ccgs-icebreaker.html] The awarding of this $9.5 million contract formally launches the detailed design effort for the Polar Icebreaker. Expected to take 18-24 months to complete, STX Canada Marine Inc. will, based on the conceptual design produced by the Canadian Coast Guard, advance the design work to the point where a comprehensive design package can be provided to Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. to build the vessel. This contract award is the culmination of a competitive selection process that started in June 2010 with the release of a Letter of Interest to industry. Eight design firms responded to that process. This was followed by an information session in October 2012 to give industry a more thorough appreciation of the intended scope of work and to provide a venue for them to ask questions. The formal Request for Proposal process was released in June 2011, with bidders given three and a half months to prepare their bids. Four bids were evaluated through a fair, open and transparent selection process determined to provide the best value for Canada. Vessel construction will take place at Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd., recently announced through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. Sea trials and delivery of the vessel to the Canadian Coast Guard is anticipated for late 2017.
  3. We have evidence that indicates that it would take five years to build one, so 2-5 year timeframe would be reasonable.
  4. 1. Kappeler ignores external forces that have an influence on the act of violence. A single individual changing their mind doesn't create the social change you talk about, nor is it a reasonable pursuit. We'll argue that the gov. is neccesary to be a catalyst for this change that Kappeler talks about. The individual doesn't choose to go to war. 2. No. 3. We'll argue that the context in terms of what country its in is irrelevant when we're only defining transportation infrastructure. We're not even debating investment. 4. 2-5 years.
  5. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/83851838/2acvdebate.docx It might be a bit over. Open for C-X
  6. 1. Instead of blaming it on megastructures? I'm not quite sure I understand the solvency portion of the k. 5,6,7. Then why is this one key? What other ways could it generate revenue?
  7. Yeah. CX First on the K 1. Status? 2. How do I as an individual contribute to the violence in the arctic? 3. Why couldn’t we reevaluate ourselves and then do the 1ac? 4. Does your alternative solve for the harms listed such as racism and exploitation? 5. How does the alt solve for arctic conflict? On the Tradeoff DA 1. What is the brink for spending that would make it tradeoff? 2. Is the DA specific to icebreakers or just any project which an arctic agency might go through with? On the XO CP 1. Status? 2. What are the NB’s to the CP? 3. How doesn’t the CP bite back into the tradeoff DA? 4. Are you saying that a single executive order would stop terrorism? 5. If not, how can you claim to solve for a nuke scenario? 6. Has Obama made any executive orders in the last 5 years? On PTX 1. If your first card says reform will happen inevitably, why is capital key? 2. Do you have any link in the 1nc that says doing our plan somehow decreases polcap? On Substantial T 1. Where do you get that we spend less than 9 billion? On Coercion K 1. Are you saying we shouldn’t have any taxes? 2. Would any tax be an attack on human liberty? On IN T 1. So the brightline is either we’re in ALL 50 states or not? Aspec… really… lol On solvency 1. How is deploying our icebreakers a unilateral military action?
  8. 1. It isn't explicitly said in the 1ac but we can provide a card that says so if you want. 2. Well yes in a way, we'll defend that since we currently only have one, we substantially increase it 6x. 3. No, we invest in building our own. 4. Our Conley'12 and falkner'11 ev talk about previous instances where leasing has left us vulnerable and unable to carry our our missions. If we owned them, it would eliminate that problem. 5. Sure
  9. 1. No. 5. There's no line that explicitly says it but since we've been only leasing 1 when we need 6 proves that we haven't been able to. 6. US involvements with icebreakers solves. 7. We don't have an exact number.
  10. 1. We'll argue that the USFG includes the branches and the agencies so therefore the task force would be unnecessary. 2. Yes, but not complete ruling of the arctic (which would then be unipolar.) 4.Our federoff '8 ev clarifies that it is fact "soft power". 5. Our first solvency evidence indicates that we need six icebreakers, whereas at the moment we can only lease 1 at a time, meaning we don't have access to any of our solvency, and the harms don't get solved. 6. That coop will stop if we allow for sovreignty disputes continue since war will erupt over the arctic. 7.The more researchers, the quicker the results, so there's no threshold for how many researchers we'd need.
×
×
  • Create New...