SS+2010+Lab+Notes

toc

August 7
Winners win assumes he gets a legislative victory with an unpopular cause. This isn’t a legislative victory, it’s a foreign policy change and it gets him hated.

Security 2AC

The card about colonialism isn’t very good, and is easily kritikable. Use realism inevitable cards to say the alt prevents us from using a realist mindset if it is necessary. Discourse of the 1AC isn’t just the words you say, but also the act that goes with it. Need a stronger defense of reps. No evidence they have proven our reps wrong. We say there are some security problems, and they need to be dealt with. They’re the ones that are all yes/no, that there are no security threats. Find cards that say environmental problems aren’t constructions of the state. Also, on environment, most others assume one state working independently to secure itself from the environment, not international cooperation. Instead of framework args, have a case outweigh args that defends yourself against “plan doesn’t matter” claims and root cause claims. Everything is discourse, including the aff. Theirs is one of ignoring security, ours is one of addressing real issues. It might have been our policy that made China paranoid, but now that it’s set in motion, it’s inevitable. Best example is terrorism-not like if we stop calling Al Qaeda terrorists they’ll suddenly start loving us. If you can, go get the word “terror” out of your aff. Historically, appeasement only encourages aggression. Neville Chamberlain.

Reverse Island Hopping 2AC

Make arg that grassroots movements can have an influence in Japan, but they won’t think they have international influence, that their protests affect American policy. Say withdrawal inevitable, they will eventually kick out. They’ve already had political victories, prime minister stepped down, Obama said he would withdraw. Say turn, improved relations stops hopping. Giving up Futenma increases credibility of our claims. Say aff timeframe is faster. All of your 1AC cards prove Japan wouldn’t want us to leave. They may think this base is useless, but the other ones aren’t.

START

Could say right now this is not a good midterm issue, but in the context of Obama being weak on foreign policy overall, it would become a larger issue. Say the month-day instead of year.

Jew K

Two different versions. One with A subpoint which is what their author says, and B is anti-Semitism should be rejected. The other is more general. Have allowed anti-zionists a forum, allowed them into their args, and are fostering the movement. The alt is to not participate in this anti-semitism. The alternative can be open, as in you can be colonialist, anti-colonialist, whatever so long as the aff is rejected.

Borders

What is the link? Why does the plan necessarily construct a border? Iraq is defined by borders. But they withdraw from an area and do nothing to reify it in another way. Don’t spend much more time cutting cards, work on an explanation. Stop the research on sovereignty.

BMD

That was a lot. Awesome. Putting it together so “this is what I think you should read” would be helpful so people know what to read at a bare minimum, and then they can add extra cards. Shortened frontlines is a good idea because the tournament starts tomorrow.

Notes for disclosure:

Upload 1ACs tonight. They need to be timed. START and energy bill stuff should be incorporated into the normal files so they can then be deleted.

August 6
Ish: Security Answers are sufficient. Environmental Security, Pan K, Chaloupka, Prolif K

Speeches Tomorrow: Julia - CIL Carlos - Borders, Iraq Colonialism BMD - Vinay Mid Terms DA - Jorge Security 2AC - Ish Island Hopping DA - Sullivan Offshore Balancing - Suo

Ken Talking about the DA: It's all dependent upon the story Use the evidence to tell a story Combining separate arguments into one card is beautiful but rarely the case

I. START - plan stops ratification A. Obama needs PC to ratification B. Will get ratified - it will be close but Obama can get it done C. Plan kills political capital and ratification D. Impact - relations, prolif.

If relations are key to crisis management but prevent the big war, you want to get to that kind of impact.

Things for extensions:

1. Now is critical to relations - Putin might be coming back into power. 2. It's a danger time because of no other arms control treaties 3. Prolif - Tipping Point

Won't be up for a vote until after the August break - that means it could make it to Greenhill.

Think about what pulling out of Japan would BE like.

Answers to aff answers:

GOP will block - they can get 8 vote/GOP fears the treaty - Both can be spun as "it will be tough" but he can still get it done. The best would be some distinguishing cards.

Plan popular Winners win - Argue about popularity and how the plan would be perceived. Economic problems mean that he'll never gain from winners win. This isn't exactly your traditional PC DA, either. Discussion of different affs and how they relate to our politics links - issues like Afghanistan, Iraq drag down his PC until they're resolved.

August 5
Schedule Change: Teams 9 and 4, your debate has been moved from tonight to Saturday. Tomorrow, meet in Moore, and then go to debates. Be prepped in advance.

Aff side:

__BMD__

Substantially problem? Only spend 0.001% on BMD. They think the best strat is the conditions CP. US BMD doesn’t matter, Japan’s does because China is afraid they’ll be use for Taiwan. Also, advantages based off cooperation.

__Japan__

Futenma only has 8.5% of troops in Japan. Substantial? Find a small percent to read in the 2AC. Say look at the general worth of something, and this is important because we always talk to Japan about this. Make sure you have a piece of evidence to give to the judge at the end of the round. Including all of Okinawa is less strategic because it then links to DAs. The link card to the heg DA is about feeling we aren’t committed-leaving troops in Okinawa helps. Rearm on the aff doesn’t make sense, no reason Japan would withdraw if they are the ones kicking us out. Good reasons why Japan would say no to conditions, because Kahn is focused on the domestic credit crisis, and would be seen as flip-flop. He was elected due to economic policy. Look into reasons why good to have alliance focus on global issues v. focusing on regional issues. Due general work to see if Japan objects to conditioning. Might be arg on conditioning that being manipulated by US affects elections.

__South Korea__

Nice 2AC time tradeoff on case. People keep reading util, which isn’t responsive. Reform CPs are basically the status quo. Vinay says that even if the aff says that the aff proves current methodologies are flawed and we should change, those flawed methodologies will inevitably be used even if they are bad, and we must thus work within them. Aff says the neg’s impacts are biased toward larger magnitude and should thus be held questionable/ignored.
 * massive fight ensues about the nature and utility of positive peace.

__COIN__

DADT doesn’t solve translators in the short term, and also doesn’t generate enough troops immediately. JIRGA doesn’t solve heg because our troops are still there. RRW impact is shady at best now, but they can work on it. Their net benefit evidence on COIN light assumes withdrawal of all troops. However, there is better ev out there. Right now, low amount of Taliban work with Al Qaeda, only a risk that keeping COIN there causes it.

__Generics__

Cap K-Will be run by RT frequently Security K-Will be run by RT frequently Pan K Politics Midterms

Neg

__COIN__

If they read a NATO advantage, could read consult NATO. However, they also could solve for the impact. Enemy centric COIN is CT. Resolve, compensation, and politics are possible strats. COIN light links to politics. Flip flop is about the only differential link. Public likes COIN troops when focused on human security. CP builds wells instead of blowing up buildings. In summary, do more work on the Afghanistan neg.

__Colonialism Iraq__

There answers to the Jew K were anti-semitism good. The card that says we are going to leave bases and what not are from a crazy guy who says it’s because America is controlled by Jews. They have a card from something like “Zunes.” His arg is as part of our colonizing, we destroyed the non-sectarian elements, such as the army and bureaucracy. Now, all the sectarian elements are pitted against each other, and if we withdraw, it would create a civil war. Worst case, 1AC proves they cause a civil war. We don’t really have anything that refutes that this is a colonial act and this is a bad thing. Also, our view of the Middle East is racialized. For 140 or nonsectarian, arguments about when the colonizer screws things up, withdrawing instead of fixing is bad. There’s a difference between intervening to fix their mistakes and fixing our mistakes. Someone could just run heg to take it on. Suo and Carlos are working on this neg.

One 2A to work on each of the affs Caporal-BMD Tatsuro-COIN Drew-PROs Sullivan-Futenma Cap K-Malkovich Security K-Ish Other Ks-Ish and Malkovich divide up All politics: Midterms, START, energy-Jorge+Aaron

Neg work COIN-Jesse BMD-Vinay Drones-Jesse+Vinay All gender stuff (SK Pros and crit Japan)-Cara and Ryan Iraq-Priyanka+James Iraq Colonialism-Rachel+Carlos CIL-Julia Okinawa Alliance-Sullivan South Korean Exercises-Hari Offshore Balancing-Suo Finish Carlos’s work (impact defense)-Drew+Boyd China-Suo

Contact each other to see what other labs’ answers are. Everyone bring the answers they heard to politics tomorrow.

August 2
Come to lab with clean jump drive timed 1ac as a .doc on computer all lab files backed up on your computer

Turkey TNW
Security K - link args: Iran link or Prolif K (or can be a specific link to security) in their syria/israel advantage there is a lot of threat rhetoric

T must include personnel - in the TNW neg

Consult NATO - all is specific to TNW NATO Cohension NB

Condition CP - condition on Turkey afirming with Armenian protocol to open the borders

Internal politics - (but you'd have to go for case with that DA)

case - the advantage defense is frontlined.

could read turkey rearm - could turn the case.

Politics - link is GOP and dems fight over whether we should consult NATO about withdrawing from NATO.

okinawa critical
their aff is mostly an imperialist argument in Okinawa

CP - multi plank to have int'l standard for H Rts, revised SOFA, etc.

politics - GOP based?

Japan rearm

Fem IR - links about representations of women/victimization (might be better on case)

Kan politics DA

lots of case - inevitability arg; they asked us

XT - can't get advantages off of discourse, only plan action

we should say the plan changes to a different type of colonialism that is more insidious.

redeployment - they'd be moved to guam or have the same sorts effect. (or ambiguously to other places)

misperception DA

Korean prolif

(not a general heg positiion, though)

JAPAN Policy - Save the Alliance
Environment - we can answer with futenma isn't going anywhere takes out their advantage

Save the Alliance Adv - Just withdraw from futenma CP (with an additional spot saying will not relocate somewhere else if they say environment) Heg good DA with link futenma key forward deployment.

Alliance cooperation CP with tanks to do economic coop, bribe okinawans any DA off of forward deployment

Japan rearm Japan Compensation DA with F22

Security with environment K, etc

Japanese politics

S Korea policy
BQ & MO end naval exercies BQ says key to 6 party talks -(but we think sanctions and a peace treaty are actually more important) Chinese relations Adv

Peace Treaty CP

Deterence DA naval exercises key to deter North Korea North Korea is not really a threat - just posturing also stops their general craziness.

Rearm DA

Cond CP - China pressure NK economically ; without condition NK could nuclearize; CP also solves for US China coop/rels

Politics Link -

case FL with barriers and issues with 6 party talks

T In - international waters (see Ish's cash drill on T)

Off shore balancing
check out the S Korea stuff where there are answers to off-shore balancing - China not enough North Korea won't attack

Condition CP from the S Korea neg

S Korean Prostitutes
redepoyment married CP (which means we get any mindset shift)

XT about mindset

S Korean internal politics - wahatc for econ K to v2l impact

similiar args to the Okinawa on the case (but a specific frontline)

Iraq policy
T must reduce from baseline (check out improved 2NC blocks!)

CP - Article 140 condition CP reloaded with referendum good cards

CP to withdraw only if Iran stops nuke program (perhaps by getting inspectors) NB is to turn Iran advantage - if we withdrew NK would prolif and move faster NB could be politics -

politics links may be tough given so many public statements about withdrawal -

afghanistan DA

PMC shift DA (especially against colonialism DA)

Internal Middle East politics (see clash drills materials)

security K - specific links see demo debate stuff - ME as always unstable, the impact cards, etc

case: modular format depending on each advantage turns on stability & Iran are quite strong (also credibility/softpower, etc)

CP - abandon SOFA and explicitly stay under certain conditions NB case turns

Iraq CIL
courts/CIL - occupation explicitly by UN and SOFA

PIC out of reduction, SCT rule invasion is illegal on CIL NB troop presence good

T no mandate of reduction - S Ct can't get read of occupation only invasion

Iraq Colonialism
Alternate causalities - state dept args from yesterday

PMC shift DA (state dpet has been explicit about this trade off)

Heg bad DA - overstretch now,

Cap K

T police = armed forces (because they may say get rid of state dept) T its (so can't get rid of PMCs) T not combat troops

Borders K with link of contruction as a separate state - create zones of who can speak.

also, your authors may have some unfavorable biases.

Afghanistan drones
T military, its as possessive. - cia is distinct, must be ownership under military

transparency CP -with a compensation program for pakistan NB politics - drones are bipart NB drones are good

Israel H rts link

politics - bipart

I Law defense and droves cards on case

security K - failed states (rhetoric of irresponsibility)

robo tech inevit and defense take out

T - gotta put a cap on numbers (the shift to airstrikes proves they're not reducing)

Surge
T reduce is not prevent a future decrease

surge/coin strats
CP increase the use of nonlethal weapons (funds research into the area) so we stop the cars without blowing them up, etc

CP economic development stimulate job growth - ppl want to be part of the govt tons of resources there, so CP can regulate how it gets subcontracted out it could be quite good for the ppl

CP COIN light - stop surge and put coin in south and east afghanistan ("where [stuff] is going down" - says Jorge) plus then shift to do counter terror later COIN needed to help stabilize the presence of each provencial govt - not about the central govt NB politics and solve better

COIN key to stability, info for counter terrorism, key to pakistan

Politics links - petrateus nomination, it'd be a flip/flop, etc

lots of offense is about why the taliban bad - talban take over is a safe haven for al qaeda etc

security K -

laser compensation DA

Afghanistan drugs
T substantially - only about 1% of our investment in afghanistan

CP legalize opium for pharmaceutical company sales; convert troops into counter terror give them a higher price than taliban (because a parasite is killing the fields, moots and turns solvency arg) NB more troops key to stability

offset CP - T reduce is a net reduce must be a cap our CP shifts to counter terrorism

CP to economic development (above) - growing apricots mean they won't grow poppy

July 31
__Kuwait__ Either find more prior binding consultation cards, or help someone else out. __Misperception__ We need cards that say perceived loss of resolve makes other nations aggressive, but we aren’t less aggressive. Plan as Japan or Korea to perceived reduction is resolve, makes them more aggressive in South China sea. __Iraq Policy__

Cut cards that say Iran won’t stop nuclearizing. For T-whether or not plan will be a reduction is speculative based on their claim about SOFA. So they are only T by effect. Read ev in the 1NC violation that talks about SOFA, and have a block to SOFA saying we meet. Can we say certainty is not substantial because it is not quantifiable? Their def justifies it’s ok to freeze the present because it might increase in the future. __Gender__ Make arg patriarchy will assure dominance/backlash. Any threat to patriarchy will be met with violence. For the CP, read the it worked in Germany part. Change CP text to only soldiers in Korea will be changed to married soldiers. On case, make #2 plan would have no effect on prostitution in Korea. Still be prostitutes, demand is sufficient, price would decline to increase demand. Throw in argument that if Korea is exploiting women this way anyways, they’d use them for sexual tourism. This goes well with the econ links in the 1AC. __Surge__

Reunderline so that it’s the minimal necessary to get the warrant out. Maybe have a PIC out of nearly? Ken and Nicole bet a diet coke they don’t keep nearly all in the plan text. And Ken does not get synonyms. __Drones__ Rule on CIL that they must disclose the drones. A lot of the debate is that if we used CIL it would be self-executing. A treaty is not self-executing if it requires legislation to execute. A lot of people are afraid of the court because it’s like them writing laws. And adopting treaties screws federalism. Go look at the book called Robo War. Say eliminating drones makes us less willing, hurts resolve. The reason we do it is because there’s not much risk when we just send in drones. By their internal link, they stop us from using other robots. Are there other robots that are good? The link is that abiding by I law puts more pressure on Israel’s policy, breaks up the alliance. __SK Policy__ In practice debates, try it once with the CP and once with the DA and case and see how it goes. Case says China doesn’t want us there, could say we’ll concede CP if you concede China. __TNW__ For consult, say plan puts it on the table.

__Paperless guide__ Must have jump drive before 1AC compatible with everything. Plannend card first, jumped cards after Only jump cards you want Mark cards, proactively jump them. No obligation to have analytics in speech Plan perms, and other things with texts should be in speech Flashing isn’t prep Don’t save speeches without prep Rectifying a viewing computer isn’t prep If a computer fails during speech, judge decides to deduct prep or other Reasonable need to see ev before the speech If teams don’t have computers, you must print it Violation of these rules isn’t a voter, but should be brought up asap __Paper guide__ Mark cards as go Analytics aren’t supposed to be written Reasonable need to see ev is before prep All ev is expected to be shared, return before speech Reasonable building of podium isn’t taken from prep Try to keep ev in piles Make sure other team has ev they need

July 30
Suo 1NC What does this CP do? It changes the way we cooperate with Japan - the CP creates a shift where we have task forces for different policies in Japan, like high-speed rail. Ken thinks that the card doesn't spell out what should be done. The card isn't a mandate of what the USFG should do. How is politics a net benefit to the CP if the CP does a lot of things? Purpose of the CP is to accept that they're pissed off about the base and solve the alliance advantage. Think about the contradiction between the K and the DA. The mix and match of evidence is a problem for the aff - neg should exploit it. Credibility is an aff claim, Sully says, not a neg one.

The Futenma debate could resurge in the long term - the plan is crucial to the long term stability of the alliance even if the CP solve sin the short term. CP probably solves toxic waste and other issues.

We also have a politics DA with a strong link against this aff.

Carlos wants the alliance turns - everyone else thinks it's stupid.

Against other labs, we could pick out of Futenma alone.

We could go more in depth on the alliance - most treat it as either good/bad; there could be a way to get more diverse/nuanced.

What reasons do we have for Kon credibility bad? Tax reform is probably good - but both sides of the debate are relatively strong. This may be impossible to prove - but if he got a big victory, he'd do TOO much and that would be bad. Carlos says Consult Japan is unrealistic.

Clash Drill - Condition on Article 140 Perm and condition the plan is better than perm do the CP - means you can't just change a word. It only occurs in Kirkuk - not all over the country. Turkey doesn't think they're bombing Iraq - they think it's Kurdistan.

Tomorrow: Ish: TNW 1NC Julia, Zach, Ryan: Iraq 1NC's Jorge: COIN Jack: Kuwait

July 29
Debate tomorrow over Afghanistan 140 provisions

Practice debates are at 3:30

Make sure you disclose

__Japan Rearm Clash Drills__

The Futenma aff probably doesn’t trigger the link.

The Lowry argument sounds like a double turn.

Take a look at the grassroots movement DA and see if this makes sense. On the case we argue the aff is mixing and matching ev, reading card Japanese attitudes will hurt alliance because Japan is less happy, and then we read cards that say weakening alliance causes rearm, etc. But why would Japan prolif when we do what we want them to? If the US backoffs, that’s the weakening of the alliance.

If 1AC cards are true that Japan doesn’t see Futenma as an important part of the forward alliance, then don’t trigger the link.

Make distinction between public pressure and policy planners. But the policy planners want us out too. They’ve backed out before, but just because they don’t want to piss us off, not because they don’t want us out.

Do we have cards on the importance of this base militarily or that we’ve politically made it seem important? Gates has said this. Someone needs to do research on how China, North Korea, and high level officials would perceive pullout of Okinawa or Futenma.

__Prostititutes__

Probably are going to lose tf and prob, mag is where the focus needs to be.

Neg should focus on our impacts aren’t lies and that war causes more violence.

Bad idea to use a checklist of magnitude timeframe and probability.

Plan is an example of what the aff is asking to imagine the world as.

The focus should be on the negative argument is mistaken because it is based on the assumption that this is how people will respond, and to portray the world in that way is a rigged game. If we believe the world is masculine, we’ll continue to respond in a masculine way.

Cannot beat the link with “our nukes will deter.” That contradicts everything you are saying in the 1AC.

Emphasize troops are essential, nuclear guarantee doesn’t work without troops.

Talk about in 1NC how they cannot fiat attitude change. Cannot change thinking and must assume the world the way that it is.

When they say prostitution elsewhere, why not defend it as Korea is an example, and acceptance of our argument here would change our perspectives more broadly.

Even if the soldiers have stopped accepting the prostitutes, they have been offered. However, withdrawl of troops might stop their ability to prostitute women, but they’ll still have the same mindset that views women as tools.

Might throw in a prollif K card.

__Turkish TNWs Allied Prolif__

Don’t the Walt card interact with your advantage, as does prolif slow?

Say the argument before you say their cite.

Could be a card that says because Turkey wants to be in the eu, they won’t proliferate.

Cards from the Hellenic association probably not super legit

Take a look at the DDW file, they have some better cards there.

Instead of referencing their points by saying 2AC, say their.

__Conditions CP Afghanistan__

Problem with CP is that it’s unenforceable. They can agree to eliminate corruption, but that doesn’t mean that they will.

The destabilizing card is a little shady.

You need to read pressure key arguments, that they would answer yes to pressure.

The card about changing course also applies to the aff.

When does the conditioning take place?

This CP works against nation building good affs.

Could condition on Taliban talks. Want the Taliban to cut off ties with Al Qaeda, no safe haven.

Negotiations are the present system. With Petraeus, since the new leadership that’s almost all we’ve talked about.

Charles Olney is the person to ask for the Jirga stuff

If we’re negotiating with whoever is in control of the area, we can condition on yes from each area. Although jirga would be better.

Argument could be only our leveraging withdrawl could get them to put down their differences.

__Link turning Afghanistan Heg advantage__

Need the uniqueness, otherwise they could win that overstretch hurts forward deployments.

2AC needs something on resolve.

Aff should spin it that we always have capability, not always have the will. Say if we leave this unwinnable war we can forward deploy in the future. Gives us will to do other COIN missions, etc.

Regardless of whether the resolve link is in the 1NC, you should make that argument as an offensive argument. Political opposition, looking like a loser, etc.

As long as we’re engaged in a losing war, the public will always be reluctant to send more troops.

Running this with negotiations CP, it could be a net benefit because it shows we’re not just running away, it’s a strategy change.

July 28
Iraq K Aff Systemic Death Advantage Security K Advantage Islamic Racism Advantage – Perpetuation of the ME as all terrorists, etc White Man’s Burden Bad Advantage Colonialism Bad Advantage

Afghanistan Redeployment DA turns back the large majority of these affs Heg Bad DA could be good These affs withdraw military and police presence but potentially not ALL presence

PMCs do a horrible job on things like intelligence – it’s also really bad that we allow them to have our military secrets CPing to regulate PMCs would probably solve the aff PMCs free us up to be colonialist, they’re a product of the market

Clash Drill – Julia vs. Jack

Discussion of Malichi, Sadr, Kurds, etc Sadr’s Bandwagon argument The evidence is pretty good for the neg – the gridlock won’t break What’s the scenario for a civil war?

Isreal Bunker Busters Debate Do they have the technology or not?

Security K Discussion – it’s about difference Does difference exist in the world of the alternative? If so, do we fear it or what? What does this perm mean? How is the plan exclusive with the alternative? Diplomatic advantages probably do not link to this K We respond forcefully to threats – not passively. Is responding by negotiation consistent with the K at all?

What does this DA say? How does the link work – would the contractors have to be compensated? Congress and the DOD BOTH have to agree to shift both as a result of the plan – that doesn’t make sense A country specific link makes this scenario even better

July 27
Aff reports __South Korea__ MO lab has a NK advantage and Chinese modernization, and ours is prolif. BQ is naval exercises. We withdraw all troops for the prostitute aff. Take a look at Chinese modernization, the link level seems shady. SK nuclear program aff is better than expected, but there is ev that says there is better ev on conditioning on China pressuring the nuclear program. There’s a card in the file called conditions CP, look at it. Forget other conditions CP in the allied prolif file. China has to be careful about pressuring NK economically, because China will suffer the problems when refugees from NK spillover to China. SK free trade, economic reform scenarios. SK economic reform will pass now, withdrawl hurts US credibility, that’s key to pass economic reform. See if withdrawl leads to SK striking NK. Useful against these cases, but mostly naval exercises, is that we need to take the hardline or NK will continue to press envelope. Sinmking ship example, if we don’t take action on those examples, NK will keep doing more, that prompts war. Also, China likes it if we keep it in control. China appreciates our deterrent there. Sanction: if we withdraw, SK in compensation might ask us to have more sanctions on NK. Politics links are solid. Substantial SK lobby, and a lot of congressmen fought in Korea, have nostalgic memories of their time there. Figure out who would win the war. __Turkey__ 1AC has two advantages. Israel-Syrian relations. Says Turkey is best country to mediate, but doesn’t have cred because TNWs there, Turkey can’t say it wants no nuclear weapons in the middle east. Could advantage counterplan to US solving with Israel. Also, their evidence is about water wars, and says if the US invests in desalination it solves. Iran-Turkey relations. Turkish rearm DA turns the ev. There is a debate on this link, will want to prolif, but won’t have the advantage. Strat is to advantage CP and then have Turkish internal politics. Also have some evidence that it solves. Israel is never going to give up Golan. Water pipes for Israel have to go through Syria. Go back and read all their sources on this. There is probably a patchwork of cards that are making different assumptions that don’t fit together. Look at national defense university web page and do searches. The NDU puts on their web page masters theses that have been written at the university, and there are a bunch on TNWs. There is a built in answer to consult on this case. NATO has kept the TNW issue off the table because it is divisive. Consulting on TNW is more likely to split the alliance than help, so rather than fight about it they just don’t talk about. Russia has a huge number of TNWs in their western regions, they won’t give them up because they’re necessary to offset their conventional inferiority. __Japan__ BQ Okinawa policy aff. They withdraw all troops from Okinawa. Three scenarios for why US Japan relations good. One is checking regional threats, second scenario was key to East Asian democracy, third is warming. Says US has engaged with China and NK in talks about alternative energy, but not Japan. This seems a little odd, we have weaker relations with China and NK. PIC just withdraw from Futenma. Then talk about why Okinawa is key to heg, but Futenma is uniquely bad and solves. In Japan, the public hates the bases. The ministry thinks the bases are needed because only then can we foster good Japan US alliance. How does plan preserve alliance? Isn’t plan the end result of all the protests? Plan will eventually happen down road, pullout will hurt alliance. Futenma Aff. Best arg is a grassroots empowerment DA. Futenma has taken on a critical role in the alliance. US is just buckling to public opposition is bad, and empowers grassroots movements to take us out of all bases. US has taken a strong stance on Futenma, backing out is bad for internat cred. Stated reason for people there is NK stability. Korea researchers should look out for this. On consult, treaty obviously doesn’t require prior binding consultation, as we just withdrew from our previous commitment. If US Japan alliance depends on some troops being there for us to back them up, how is it possible to win impact to DA because Japan will say enough at some point. Japanese rearm as a NB to withdrawing from Futenma instead of Okinawa. Find out why they would prolif when they don’t want us there. Chinese counterbalancing AFF KL Lab. Says we should withdraw, key to Sino US relations, makes our strategy counterbalancing. No first use counterplan could solve.

Could we counterplan to stop supporting Taiwan? __Aegis__ Check and make sure all of the 1AC is up under the SS 1ACs. Stop cooperation and development. Advantages include Japanese rearm, violates article 9 which collapses which is good. East Asia, freaks out China and NK, they freak out. China will develop anti-satellite weapons because they’ll target satellites key to economy. Secondly, when China’s deterrent is threatened, China will change from their no first use impacts. When we develop BMD in Japan, we’ll sell it in Europe. That freaks out Russia, who will withdraw from START. We’ve had BMD for a while, but we’re developing block 2A missile defense, freaks out a lot of countries. If we stop building, other countries will react in kind. Japan defense industrial base, part of article 9 is a restriction on arms exports. US is pressuring them to remove this provision so they can sell to Europe. Japanese spending. Japanese education and training program is on the chopping block now, BMD directly trades off with other areas of the budget. Japan is trying to take leadership right now, loses cultural leveraging. Japanese science spending, that’s key to Japanese econ, key to both global econ and US. Also stem cell bank is about to be cut which causes immortality. Text is The US should end all joint missile defense and deployment programs with Japan. Domestic restraints on militarization, only BMD would break them down. CP to have Japan stop cooperation? Would probably hurt the alliance. Why does the development have to be done in Japan? Because they’re the only willing partner. The Japanese technology is already in the block 2A missiles, only way to do this. Neg strats include Relations DA, emboldens NK, some sort of trilateral alliance with Australia. Block 2A is causing recently heightened tensions. We don’t get rid of block 1A, but it’s half done, we leave it like that, it’s ineffective. Look at if it’s “substantial” to stop the development and cooperation while leaving block 1A, other troops, etc. There is some ev about it beind important to change our strategy there. __MO Japan Aff__ US Japan alliance aff with many alliance. Just withdraw from Okinawa. Most of the BQ strat will work, just cut some extra case specific cards on this. __Iraq__ Many policy and critical versions. Policy versions adhere to SOFA and withdraw according to timetable. One aff has SC rule it violated CIL. It says internat law good, preemptive war bad. CP to rule on CIL and don’t withdraw from Iraq. US-Iran advantage. Withdrawl would pacify Iran, only reason they’re trying to nuclearize is because of Iraq. Various credibility advantages that increase heg. Soft power. Prevents overstretch. Helps credibility by sticking with timeline. Iraqi stability advantages. Increase stability because we remove ourselves as a target, and would force Iraq to govern themselves. Most of these end in Iraq civil war/instability. KL claims democracy promotion. Article 140 conditions counterplan works. Says key to solve sectarian violence. Other net benefit could be Iraqi politics. Other counterplans could be to leave some troops in different regions or capacities. A lot of troops we have there now are going to be in advisory and training roles. You could probably make a credible claim that if you are to withdraw those troops, we’d start using PMCs in those training and advisory roles, which is bad. If we were to withdraw, would cause Iran to fill in and pressure Iraq. On stability, if we don’t condition, just results in more instability. A lot are not reversal causal. Don’t speak to withdrawing now would stop whatever damage the occupation caused. If the referendum would pass, would screw over Turkey and Iran. __Clash drills__ Aaron-Aff on condition CP for Afghanistan Jessie-Neg on condition CP for Afghanistan Ryan-Japan Rearm (sort out the sides) Jack-Japan Rearm (sort out sides) Hari-Aff Turkey allied prolif Drew-Neg Turkey allied prolif Vinay-Heg Boyd-Heg Japan Politics Uniqueness probably overwhelms link. Link turning is extremely difficult. Must figure out how to impact turn. Make a uniqueness wall. Make sure the wall has warrants as a way of distinguishing out his arguments, reason to decide for the neg. Each set of arguments is a quick evaluation of his arguments. Each card should have the warrant emphasized.



July 26
· Politics Link work to be done – maybe midterms An aff section of this file should be put out · A K of Prolif might be something to do – Is Terror Talk in the file? · There was a Gender Group – Fem IR, etc · The compiled file was pretty solid · Is there an Israel argument in Allied Prolif? There might be in Middle East – but it sounds like there’s not anything in that, either. · We need stuff on Israel, China, Russia · PMC Shift · Redeployment DAs · Guam has turtles, or something · Iran DA – attacking them is dumb, international support for sanctions could be better? · One person could go through the Allied Prolif generic and make it good · Condition withdrawal on China ending the North Korea nuclear program Assignments: · Security – Jesse, Rachel, Jon · Red Spread/Israel – Tats · OBJ – Hari · Drones – Aron · Domestic Compensation – Malkovich · Japan – Sullivan, Suo, Vinay · South Korea Policy – Cara · Turkey – Ish · Afghanistan – Jorge, James, Drew · Iraq – Malkovich, Ryan, Julia · Kuwait – Jack · Gender – Priyanka · Impact Extensions – Carlos

OBJ Stuff

PMCs could be a case turn to this aff Forward Deployment Good Taxes are bad Carlos is doing AT: deontology

Gender (All the Prostitutes and Answers to the Gender K)

Gotta have answers to our ev is biased Feminist protections of prostitutes Answers to Moon and third world feminism These women are doing this out of poverty and choice – not because they’re forced to The South Korean government is forcing many of the women into poverty Maybe answers to Gender Language and/or Brinksmanship is Gendered, etc Rachel vs. Priyanka – clash drill smackdown

Drones What does this aff do Is it substantial Which of these drones are good? We should PIC out of one of them Carlos wants a PIC out of a word – UAV’s are the term of art

Security K Prolif K – Jesse doesn’t know what it is. It’s basically just an orientalism argument Pos Peace, Terror Talk, Pan K, Chaloupka All of these should only be spent one or two nights on – just quick files to be put out with aff answers Carlos vs. James – clash drill

Tatsuro Israel, Russia, China relations Red Spread DA Isreal – Bunker Busters that could own Iran Clash Drill – Tats vs. Jorge Compensation Clash Drill: Malkovich vs. Julia

Clash Drill – Iraq Politics DA – Ish vs. Suo Clash Drill – Japan Politics DA – Sullivan vs. Cara

Afghanistan What neg positions exist against this aff Can the strategy in the country work/should we give it a chance? CP – change the way COIN is used/what the troops do/train the Afghan national army We need to have a very strong defense of presence and number of troops Taliban DA – Negotiations

Day 6 July 24 -
__Future T__

This debate is silly. Only read it against an aff that acts far in the future/

Could apply to theoretical Layne aff that acts then, but probably won’t apply.

__Declaration/Secret T__

Make argument that it’s normal means-expand upon the congress changing mind when they change their votes, president does the same thing.

Examine the definitions-need substantially? What does it modify? Not resolved

__Personnel T__

Good example with Iraq, that they wouldn’t just leave all their weapons behind.

What does it mean to be quantifiable? Make a clear distinction.

__Reduction on face T__

Reduce the presence in Okinawa would increase presence elsewhere.

Can be argued that this is only fx un t.

Also is evidence that indicates it will be reduced elsewhere.

__Substantially T__

Breadth over year and depth in round is good.

Nukes are largest deterrence, so substantial.

Use deterrence as the definition to narrow it down more, other definitions too broad to allow you to be substantial.

Make argument that substantially as a percent presumes it is quantifiable.

Day 5 July 23 -
T Clash Drills

Ish/Drew Discussion of presence and the definition of the word in DA to the Neg Interp: No ground troops or naval troops T Permutations: Are They Legit?

Priyanka/Sullivan Is this definition intuitive or not? Military study concludes combat troops aren't presence. Extra-T to change peacekeeping troops to combat troops?

Carlos/Julia Does the aff meet? Probably.

Jesse/Suo Presence discussion - how is it felt

Aron/Ryan What do PMCs do? How does that make them topical?

Day 4 July 22-
See 1AC section of the wiki to download all 1ACs discussed today.

Friday night and Saturday afternoon lab-Meet in Moore 150 (same building as Filene)

Meets 6:30-10:00 tomorrow 1:30-4:30 on Saturday

__Prostitution 1AC__

Examine combining advantages-remove the prostitution in general is bad, but say in this instance it’s bad because SK are forcing them in this instance, and while women could make this choice in general, but they’re being forced to make this choice in general

Avoid the tag “Prostitution degrades women as human beings”

There is the intersection, commodofication is the result of race, class, and gender.

Must withdraw all troops, regulation doesn’t solve cards prove. Also, SK feels it’s a required thing to keep troops happy, only way to tell them no means no is with this.

Combine inherency and solvency

What’s the difference between intersectionality and the first advantage?

Intersectionality helps with beating Ks, card about viewing through different lenses

Write it as awareness of colonial overtones provides intersectional perspective. If we make colonialism a focus, split it into two advantages.

Beginnings of the security K should be thrown in here.

Make sure you can describe it as the root of the problem is our presence there, because it helps avoid DA turns the case problems later.

Cut cards on feminist perspectives. Search “strategic essentialism” in the case list, there’s a card that helps it

Look at possible third world feminism args

__Afghanistan 1AC__

Karzai and instability advantages are very similar.

How can say decentralization good? Morgan makes distinction between violent fragmentation and compartmentalization. Decentralization is more like federalism.

On his own, nobody respects Karzai. He’s insane. When we stop supporting him, he loses his power

This strategy will inevitably fail. Better thing to do is to stop supporting Karzai, and let the local controls become more important. That’s the best hope for stability in this nation.

Decentralization inevitable, but only peaceful if we stop COIN.

Why can’t have COIN adapted to decentralization? Because COIN is all about making elections happen, centralized government. They’re already listening to their local leaders now, we’re just trying to force them to listen to Karzai as well

Look into NATO. Why can’t NATO claim success by saying we’ve won the war?

Need to make sure there are answers to consult NATO if there is a NATO advantage.

There is evidence about out of area operations splitting the alliance. Also is evidence saying Afghanistan is the litmus test for more out of area operations for NATO.

Find out how NATO feels about the plan.

Also look into nation building bad/colonialism. There are cards about social engineering.

There are also lots of PMCs there, possible security problems because of terrorism and groups working for the CIA, take a look.

__Japan Policy 1AC__

Shorten up the tags.

Some public opposition to Okinawa now. The problem is if the protests spillover to the rest of the protests in Japan, specifically Futenman, the politicians will have to listen to the public. Problem is that they would push the US out of Japan as a whole, we just withdraw from a small section.

Change the aff to make it a pol cap aff. Political capital low now, plan gives him pc, allows him to pass financial reform.

Consultation is the status quo. Plan is result of squo talks, they asked us to leave, we’ve been saying maybe, but now we are withdrawing.

Setting up all of the formal stuff for consultation and taking that time would piss Japan off.

Basically: Find case specific answers to consult.

__Japan Critical 1AC__

Apply the same level of specificity to this aff.

Why have the whole security scenario? Makes it impossible to make the Brooks/Wolfworth scenario that heg is inevitable.

Because we have a securitized notion of Japan, we ignore the environment, mistreat women. Centered around security being the cause.

Need to make it more specific to Japan. Possibly something about WWII? It has symbolic value because of the bomb, etc.

Search Okinawa in Project Muse. Find some stuff more specific about Japanese securitization.

Get ready to answer the prolif K and allied prolif.

__Kuwait 1AC__

Find impacts. Oil prices and middle eastern terrorism are possibilities.

Look at oil, Kuwait trying to get away from petrodollars

US impedes Kuwait’s ability to be a democracy in the region.

Also possible plan to prevent Iraqi soldiers from going to Iraq.

__Clash Drills Tomorrow__


 * Cannot be combat troops-Iraq not T**

Sullivan-Aff Priyanka-Neg


 * Must include personnel-Aegis not T**

Zach-aff Jack-neg


 * In=physically within-Naval exercises in international water**

Drew-aff Ish-neg


 * Nuclear umbrella-not a military presence, not physical**

Michael-aff Jessie-neg


 * Must be more than status quo reduction-must be faster than 2011 in Iraq**

Julia-aff Carlos-neg


 * Future action not T-must reduce now**

Rachel-Aff Jorge-Neg


 * Has to on face reduce, not ban particular thing**

Cara-aff Jonathan-Neg


 * Military contractors**

Aaron-Aff Ryan-Neg


 * Substantially-BMD or Naval**

Hari-Aff James-Neg


 * Must be a formal action-President can’t just think it**

Vinay-aff on resolved is formal policy Tatsuro-neg on resolved is formal policy

Format is neg aff neg. No 1AR. Disclose tonight.

1. Email Campbell Haynes your 1NC, 2AC, and 2NC 2. Every meet for dinner tomorrow at 5, entire lab at the hop

Day 3 July 21-
Korea Affs:

Iraq Aff:

PMCs

Day 2 July 20-
Meet at Kemeny Holdeman tomorrow, right outside Novack

__South Korea__

Drawdowns in past mean no more, and the US will inevitably get involved. Prostitution could do it. The preemptive war article is good, but assumes Bush, and it’s only one advantage. It says that if we withdraw we’ll have a credible threat of war, and then we’ll be able to have a threat that will force North Korea to denuclearize. Kennelly from the American Enterprise Institute writes this-cut this stuff for the neg.

Maybe instead do withdrawing makes NK more comfortable, and then less likely to be aggressive, more willing to talk, and help the transition to new leadership.

Could have an aff the includes the nuclear umbrella. Go to college wiki and look under Dartmouth, Mich State, and others to find cites for no first use.

Other aff: we sent ships into yellow sea to train SK, but the Chinese don’t like this. However, these might be one time exercises, end before Greenhill.

Kritikal side of things. SK is a unique intersection between colonialism and patriarchy, has prostitution for troops. Need an answer to attempts to regulate soldiers instead of withdraw-object fiat, ineffective regulations. Any econ cards helps with K offense on comodifying women.

__BMD__

Joint development between US and Japan because Japanese constitution prevents Japan from doing it alone. Fear a country has of missile defense system is that it makes possessor of missile defense invulnerable in first strike situation. Search word presence/present within what is going on here to make it be topical.

Possible neg arg is that military presence reduction requires people, and people are there. Also examine, cooperation with Japan is cooperation in Japan.

Possible interp is that presence=talks/other forms of cooperation. Args against it include it would explode limits by allowing us to change all of our advisory roles.

Do lots of contextual T work, scour T files produced at other institutes. Find something that comes up with the distinction between military presence and military forces.

__Iraq__

Inherency problem, SOFA agreement, Biden just got back from Iraq a couple of weeks ago and said we’re definitely sticking to the agreement regardless of stability.

Date limit searches, find people saying anything in aff’s direction.

Also start thinking about advantages from ambiguity.

__Kuwait__

You can’t hear people screaming because of the generators.

They already have progressive women’s rights, not much for fem.

Look into strategic importance of Kuwait and combining that with colonialism. Also, Kuwait doesn’t want withdrawal of Iraq troops, because it would force refugees into Kuwait and would also free up our troops to go into Kuwait.

Our operations in Yemen are based in Kuwait. Look at possible people could be assassinated.

Also look into the democratization stuff, about US possibly interfering with new democracy.

__PMCs__

Bad because of idea of privatizing military, possibly capitalist.

Good way of allowing the US to avoid responsibility.

We’ve used PMCs in Iraq to avoid criticism over death tolls.

Privatizing security is bad, creates rich poor gap on who has security.

Look into how much of PMC market we are. If we can withdraw from these 6 countries and then put PMCs out of business, we’ll be able to change the nature of PMCs.

PMCs in violation of Geneva convention because they’re technically civilians, but they are also combatants.

Possibly have Court rule on CIL, argue spillover.

Examine distinction between the people fighting and the people just driving trucks.

__Afghanistan__

Heg-Overstretch, COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is based off here. Corruption-we pay people to allow us to travel, funds warlords.

If we remove just counterinsurgency, our counterterror will fail as well, otherwise we won’t have the intelligence necessary for counterterror because counterinsurgency is in the cities where they gather information. But ev goes other way too, impedes stability, alienates the people needed to have successful counterterror. Also destroys karzai government, which is bad.

Need to examine the legitimacy and necessity of getting data from counterinsurgency.

Counterinsurgency is about stability, does more than shoot people. Counterterror is about chasing terrorists.

Make sure there is an answer to reducing rather than changing.

Day 1 July 19
Kuwait has to be done - it's on the list.

Carlos: Pull out the troops currently stationed at the DMZ. Disad's aren't unique because the US is moving troops around and the advantages could be North-South reconciliation. Plan would remove troops entirely. CP to move them elsewhere in the country may/may not solve - that's an evidence question.

Tats: Pull out counterinsurgency troops (hearts and minds people). Afghani instability, the way we're trying to establish a government, is bad. Nation building in Afghanistan bad.

Zach: Pull Afghan counter narcotic troops. Not doing that drives them into the Taliban.

Julia: Iraq withdrawal as per the Security Agreement. Iraq-U.S. Relations advantage. Necessary to maintain good U.S.-Iraq relations. Withdrawal also good for Iraq stability. Could also be key to an offshore balancing strategy. Is this topical?

Michael: Stop ballistic missile cooperation with Japan. We have troops in Japan and ships with BMD in Japan. Advantages: North Korea, China is mad too. An Alliance Restructuring Advantage is possible. Does South Korea have it too - [|Yes?]

What does removing troops from Kuwait do? Carlos wants a genealogy? Jack has done Kuwait work before - Kuwait can be a lilypad for the rest of the ME. It's key to both land and air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Turkey - If we're doing it, it seems TNWs are the ways to go. Carlos thinks that the US trains a secret police in Turkey.

Nicole - Possible critical aff is the Okinawa base in Japan. Vinay - same aff, but with an Alliance credibility advantage.

James - Remove the nuke aircraft carrier from Japan - relations advantages. [|James is right.]

Carlos - shun Turkey. This aff doesn't work because we can't topically stop trading with them. Maybe this is a neg file.

Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 7, Iraq - 6, Japan BMD - 6, Turkey - 1, Japan K - 2, Japan Nuke Ship - 1.

One Choice: Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 4, Japan BMD - 2, Iraq - 6, Kuwait - 3. PMCs - 1.

Kuwait - Cara and James. PMCs - Julia. Okinawa - Jesse and Drew. Korea - Carlos, Rachel, Ish, Zach. Afghanistan - Tats, Aaron, Jorge, Hari, Jonathan. Japan BMD - Vinay and Michael. Iraq - Jack, Priyanka, Sullivan, and Ryan.

__Afghanistan__ How does being nice to them create instability? Supporting Karzai leads to instability. Nation building helps Karzai. Our presence is pointless. Counter terror CAN work without counter insurgency. Advantages - Heg, Improved Stability, Terrorism Advantage?

__Iraq__ Get out of the country. Flip flop? Very case specific politics work could be done. DA - US troops there protect the Kurds. Shia have power now - if we pulled out it might lead to Shia authoritarianism. Ken thinks advantages might be week.

__Korea__ North Korea is crazy. Mines exist - can we demine? We want to remove troops from Korea. What does Kim Jong Il want? Where is his power going to go? Could the plan be to end the nuclear guarantee instead of removing troops? Carlos has an interesting idea about hardliners. Lots of ev about us promising not to mess with North Korea.