homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:33 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:31 pm
Posts: 16
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Ohio, R6
So I see on the caselist that a team is running this. I am curious what this case does. It seems somewhat non-topical from the limited info I have. Does anyone have case info or a flow? Thanks!

_________________
Alexander Kidd R6; SWORD

2013-2014| Hoffmann/Kidd (Survived)
2014-2015| Kidd/Langdon (4th at Indiana Qualifier)
2015-2016| Hoffmann/Kidd (11th at Regionals)
2016-2017| Kidd/Sargent


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
From what I have heard, they manufacture additional F-22s for the USAF, and station them in Guam, Japan, and South Korea. And yes, it is blatantly extra-topical. Belyeu/Singer are both good debaters, though; they broke with the case at our last tournament (not sure what their affirmative record was).

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:22 am
Posts: 50
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: lol no
How did they defend top? Did they just define policy as a position or something?

If you ran Topicality against them, and then ran their plan back at them as a non top cp, what would happen?

Never going to do that, but I'd love to watch it.

_________________
.-.


Last edited by InfiniteUnderscores on Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
InfiniteUnderscores wrote:
If you ran Topicality against them, and then ran their plan back at them as a non top cp, what would happen?

Never going to do that, but I'd love to watch it.

It really just muddles the round. Either way, if you win T, you win the round because it's a pre-fiat argument and (presumably) aff only has post-fiat arguments.

There's no reason to run the counterplan.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Raptors are REALLLLLY expensive. Cost DAs will work against this case.

I've also read stuff (which probably isn't true) about how China is developing a new radar that will detect stealth and make raptors obsolete...worth looking in to, in any case.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
InfiniteUnderscores wrote:
How did they defend top? Did they just define policy as a position or something?


We didn't debate them, though I know teams who did. From what I heard, they tried to say that the policy "concerned China" and that "Congress would think it concerned China". The obvious negative response being, of course, that it also concerns every other country in the region, especially those in which the F-22s are stationed (making it extra-topical).

Cyberknight wrote:
Raptors are REALLLLLY expensive. Cost DAs will work against this case.

I've also read stuff (which probably isn't true) about how China is developing a new radar that will detect stealth and make raptors obsolete...worth looking in to, in any case.


The above are both decent, though I think you will have trouble persuading judges to vote the Cost DA if they win their impacts to counterbalancing the PRC. My immediate reaction would be to run a DA about micro-managing the military--in my view, Congress should avoid telling the military precisely where to station their aircraft. That's a decision that should be made by the Department of Defense.

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:31 pm
Posts: 16
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Ohio, R6
Thanks guys. Great thoughts.
I researched the micromanaging DA a little while back, unfortunately there is a huge body of literature that says more civilian control is better, but since the case requires permanent stationing, I think you could argue that this doesn't even allow the military to re-purpose these Raptors for future use effectively.
How would an Escalation DA work? Would that simply play into aff's hands?

_________________
Alexander Kidd R6; SWORD

2013-2014| Hoffmann/Kidd (Survived)
2014-2015| Kidd/Langdon (4th at Indiana Qualifier)
2015-2016| Hoffmann/Kidd (11th at Regionals)
2016-2017| Kidd/Sargent


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
AlphaKilo wrote:
Thanks guys. Great thoughts.
I researched the micromanaging DA a little while back, unfortunately there is a huge body of literature that says more civilian control is better, but since the case requires permanent stationing, I think you could argue that this doesn't even allow the military to re-purpose these Raptors for future use effectively.
How would an Escalation DA work? Would that simply play into aff's hands?


Right, that's where I would focus. The problem isn't civilian control of the military--though that primarily comes from the executive, not Congress--the problem is micro-managing the everyday specifics. Either their plan hinders effective deployment by restricting long term options, or it is ineffective, because if it only mandates they be stationed there once, the military will simply move the aircraft after the affirmative plan is passed. In other words, either the military ends up moving the aircraft anyway (which is a solvency takeout, since they are now just producing F-22s, and also prevents them from even claiming FX-T, since the F-22s could be stationed anywhere) or their plan is an example of legislative entrenchment, which is problematic, to say the least.

I don't think an escalation DA plays into aff's hands, and it might be strong if you are comfortable running it. My guess is that you would link the new aircraft to an arms race between the U.S. and China, then impact to war. You could also use similar argumentation to a Securitization Kritik--even the affirmative language about China being a threat can be interpreted as an "us vs. them" mindset and impacted to war. You will just have to deal with the affirmative response that China has already escalated tensions in the South China Sea, etc., and that military strength is more likely to deter than to cause war, which will go over well with most judges in the NCFCA.

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 161
Home Schooled: Yes
Time to pull out the old Cog editions and run "Hegemony - Bad" :lol: Seriously though, this is based on the concept that the US can not only be stronger than any other superpower in the world (we win, hands down), but that we can simultaneously be stronger than each superpower on their own front doorstep. Which is quickly becoming less tenable - just take a look at GDP.

IMO the deeper problem with this case is the inability to respond to China's strategy. Which is not to outgun the US in conventional terms, but to win their home area through denial of access and unconventional means. Stealth aircraft is a viable response to this, but only if integrated across many other aspects. Those aircraft are stationed on island bases; how do we respond to China's growing missile arsenal, improving technology that is making missile defense less tenable, and their growing range that could take out those bases? And aircraft carriers are even more vulnerable. Not to mention the possibility that they could take down communications or other targets that are necessary to US operations. I'm sure extra F-22's couldn't hurt, but I'd take some convincing that just dumping some extra planes on the front does much to improve our overall strategic position and justify the cost.

_________________
Caleb Smith
Region IV Alumnus
Cog Debate

"But I declare that Carthage must be destroyed."
Cato the Elder


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited