2010+KL+Lab+Notes

toc =Monday, July 19=

__Notes on Affirmative Cases__
Extra Topicality

Why is Extra –T bad? – you can CP out of it – then you don’t have to win t - you have to win a T debate just to get back to ground zero

Ev shouldn’t’ be the threshold – if I have a card that says X I can do it? - question of topic specific education regardless of topic

What happens when you read a CP that can affect the rest of your strategy Ex – plan is to w/draw from Okinawa and another country not in the topic – like guam? Why would it not necessarily be advantageous for you to CP out of it - THE NET BENEFITS WOULD LINK TO THE CP AS WELL

It screws over the rest of your strategy – conditionality problems, uniqueness problems etc

Aff Ideas

Okinawa Aff is good Don’t use the Guam advantage – CP to remove troops out of guam and disads to w/drawal in Okinawa

South Korea aff – military operations showing off to North Korea and China; not good

UAV aff - boudrillard - straight up advantages -structural violence adv

They monitor these people all the time - no people inside

Based in Afghanistan – operate in noman’s land between Pakistan and Afghanistan Opium/mineral deposit ideas – but the CP to change the strategy would be devastating; keep the troops there but just don’t use them

PMC’s aff – privat emilitary contractors – not part of the army; paid soldiers we send into Afghanistan; commit human abuses – kill civilians, terrible soldiers. They shoot superior officers; mentally ill and get discharged form the army – NO ACCOUNTABILITY for them - topicality problem; it’s not a military presence, and more importantly, it’s not the US MILITARY PRESENCE Most of them are in Iraq; the ones in Afghanistan are Afghani

Cyberhackers aff – cyberhacking the other countries???

Missile Defense Aff in Japan – not in country; it’s on a ship isn’t it? Could be in Japanese waters – could not be. - sold it to Japan; don’t own it

Objectivism aff – self interest in your foreign policy good - Military only for self-defense; small standing army against attackers; everything else is a waste - Realist versions – counterbalancing direction – we’ve experienced imperial overstretch, time to draw back and power project around the world from off-shore rather than forward deployment - If you can win morality debate or conservative heg debate then you can win w/these affs – viable

Turkey TNW – very strategic - no troop w/drawal DA - turkey is not as volatile as iraq/Afghanistan - tnw’s are useless – no offensive reasons

Orientalism aff – Said – western discourses abt the orient; specific to the middle east; Britain and france used to perceive mid east and US takes up the same discourse – mess up the relations, oil interests, way perceive them as savages, terror talk, colonialism – imposing order on them cuz they can’t do it themselves or it is beneficial to us to treat them that way - problem with this aff is that removing troops doesn’t mean we’ve changed mindset - what about non-topical countries - plan text is a serious problem

Really good Israel DA – reactions to Turkey w/drawal - lot of affs this links to Found 1 trllion tons of natural gas on the shores of Israel – and oil as well

Close detention centers in Afghanistan - could go through the court on ilaw grounds - or obama doing it as well concern is T debate – also a lot of them are not acknowledged; it’s a consistent ev question – what exactly is going on

Iraq Aff – - disads non-u – we’re already getting out - we can’t stabilize it – we’ll just make it all worse by staying there - no link uniqueness, no impact uniqueness Need to think through the T question – if the status quo is topical (SOFA agreement – remove all minus 50k strike force by august 1st 2010, and the rest by dec 31st 2011); res just says decrease troops in an area – moving up the w/drawal date is topical – but that’s not as strategic This is T cuz we just have to defend decrease in troop presence – decrease from what? Also, no chance in hell we’re going to be out when we say we’re going to be out Why is this better than immediate pullout? - lit on iraq is kind of dying – the sentiment of getting out is calming down since Wash formally agrees - ppl who say sofa bullshit just get out now is hard to find

Okinawa us presence = involuntary force, prostitution, sex trafficking, bad attitudes to the local pop – gender aff

W/draw from Afghanistan version – worse than iraq cuz no uniqueness stuff going for it; Afghanistan isn’t a real country – their econ was 282 million; the endowment of wake is 3 times that; no ability to tax, no institutional support, no army, they’re nonexistent almost – warlords and nomads

Okinawa – all but 50k troops Solves the disads and advantages; find a solvency card that accesses both

=Tuesday, July 20=

__Notes on Affirmative Cases__
-current US policy is failing—surge failed -US should withdraw troops from Iraq -US soldiers don’t have to abide by Iraqi laws—internal link to Iraqi resentment? -Our presence in Iraq undermines our credibility and international political capital -credibility can be a good answer to counterplans—if we say we’re going to do something and don’t, it doesn’t solve the aff
 * Iraq**

To do: -for future reference: do more research on the internet and less from books, because this aff is about recent policy initiatives -google news search for: “status of forces agreement,” “strategic agreement, “Iraq and 2011,” “US Iraq credibility”

-Ilaw advantage—our presence triggers backlash -air traffic control issue -Pakistan relations advantage -morality advantage—it removes emotional connections to warfare, it’s robotic and destroys value to life
 * Afghanistan**

-Iran proliferation—treaty won’t go further until TNWs are removed; when Turkey is afraid of Iran, it will proliferate -fixes overall middle eastern stability because it opens up Turkey as a negotiator -NATO stability—but the cards go both ways -Russia -nuclear terrorism
 * Turkey**

To do: keep researching Turkey’s role in the middle east

-Sex Among Allies-cut this! -narratives—> transnational feminism -answers to Ks about how prostitution should be allowed (feminine choices good, etc)
 * South Korea**

to do: -search “camp town”

-gender stuff -we’re there in the first place because of imperialism/technocracy -K of sexual violence as a justification for actions—this depersonalizes what happened to the women and it’s also bad for us to read narratives because we’re speaking for them and co-opting their experiences -2 counterplans: retraining troops to abuse women less -we need aff cards about policies to prevent sexual abuse failing and removal of troops being key -better neg cards than aff cards—refocus on South Korea
 * Japan**

-TROOPS TAKE AWAY OUR TAX DOLLARS! -altruism destroys effectiveness in foreign policy -America should be isolationist -strong moral stance means no CPs -cut cards from CATO, the Ayn Rand Institute -cut cards that say that interventionism always makes things worse—we spend lots of money and get nowhere and accomplish nothing
 * Objectivism (what?)**

-most literature assumes withdrawing all troops from the middle east (which is probably not strategic, because massive links to the Israel DA and will cause huge instability) -we should just pull out of China, because China will become the regional hegemon; focus on Asia
 * Offshore balancing**

-search for publications in library catalogue in order to determine if the Dartmouth library has access to them -if you’re cutting a law review, look at the introduction, but skip the “history/background” section. The footnotes are really useful because they cite tons of related things. --search on Lexis and Factiva: Lexis allows for specific searches: -W/[any number] means that the article searches for the first term and the second term any number of words away. Ex: W/20 means that the first search term is within 20 words away from the second search term. -W/P is term within the same paragraph -W/S is within the same sentence. -If you put an exclamation point at the end of the word, it will find all variations of that word. Ex: democ! will allow you to find democracy, democratic, etc.
 * Research tips:**

-conditionality: you can kick a counterplan whenever you want to, regardless of offense; the status quo is always an option -it is good to explain conditionality as “the status quo is always an option”
 * -** only read a counterplan dispositionally if you have a judge who strongly believes in the difference between condo and dispo (check judging philosophies)

Why is condo good: -it’s the most logical kind of argumentation (it would be illogical to give up the status quo as an option—if a policymaker is presented with a counterplan and a plan that both make the sqo worse, you shouldn’t have to defend one of those options) -real world: congressmen can stop pushing bills and can change their minds; maintaining what is going on the sqo is always an option for policymakers. There are many bills to compare a proposed bill to. -critical thinking: forces the 2ac to determine how to strategically allocate time -neg flex: aff gets to choose the topic of the debate and can prepare for counterplans, whereas neg has to prep for many cases; also, key to keep the debate interesting -best policy option: it’s good to test the aff from multiple angles -conditionality is key to prevent the aff from sandbagging and saving the best advantage for the 2ac

at: arg underdevelopment: -we access education better through strategic 2ac choices -functional if not theoretical limit on condo: smart neg teams won’t win 7 cps because they won’t do well (neg needs to read net benefits to counterplans) -2ar favors the aff when args are underdeveloped

at: not reciprocal: -the aff gets to choose what we talk about, which also isn’t reciprocal -perms check -lack of reciprocity isn’t that important-fairness isn’t that important -burden of rejoinder: the neg needs to negate the plan; what the neg does is established by the aff. Without the aff, there would be nothing to debate.

At: aff flex -they get to choose the aff already

Why is condo bad: -it encourages the neg to read a ton of crappy arguments and to just go for what the aff undercovers—this results in underdeveloped argumentation (that’s an internal link turn to best policy option/critical thinking arguments—it isn’t testing the best policy but instead the least covered policy) -not reciprocal—the aff is stuck with the 1ac but the neg can get multiple counterplans. -Aff flex: aff needs to be able to go for arguments put out in the 2ac -real world: if the debaters represent one congressmen, they should defend one advocacy. Debaters should be advocates, not the entirety of congress. Congressmen defend bills they propose. -critical thinking before the debate -real world advocacy skills -no limit on fiat: if you allow one conditional counterplan and accept the idea of testing the plan from multiple angles, there’s nothing to stop someone from reading tons of counterplans—we have to draw the line somewhere.

Limited conditionality: one counterplan and one K

Why it’s good: -you have to draw the line anywhere -best balance -debaters have done this for a long time; it did not destroy debate

Why it’s bad (Lamballe hates it!): -it’s really arbitrary; if you can have 2 advocacies, why not 3? This does not establish a line.

What is the distinction between an advocacy and an advantage or a disadvantage? -because counterplans and plans change the world of the status quo, they operate at a different level; disads have to be consistent with each other -reading a counterplan takes little time investment because it is just fiated—disads require evidentiary support and take way longer

also, everyone should see The Big Lebowski. Also, the origin of sandbagging (credit to Lamballe): British street gangs used to beat people up with bags of sand which LOOKED innocuous but in reality were LETHAL WEAPONZ!!!

=Wednesday, July 21, 2010=


 * IF YOUR PHONE GOES OFF, MUST DANCE TO RING TONE**

__**Aff Notes**__
IRAQ AFFIRMATIVE

Search term ideas:

Iraq within paragraph of: (W/P) War Conflict Violence Tension Nuclear war Mushroom cloud Armageddon Extinction Nuclear terrorism Disaster Catastrophe

(W/P) Escalate, escalation, escalates, escalating Spread Erupt

CUT ALL JARRAR CARDS

TURKEY AFFIRMATIVE

Search Turkey Tactical Nuclear Weapons Iran Iran Prolif advantage is the goal - Focus on I/L level cuz there are a lot of impact cards

Turkey prolif is awesome – keep doing searches for those advantages. Cut Turkey Prolif Defense – don’t wanna initiate that debate in 1AC.

Nato – find cards specific to Turkey

Russia/Iran relations – find cards specific to TNW’s

OFFSHORE BALANCING AFF

Forward deployment = war with Taiwan - card doesn’t say it causes a war w/Taiwan, it just says it causes the war to escalate

have to prove China won’t be aggressive if we let them takeover the region, but on the other hand that there will be a war w/China in the status quo Search – China + Miscalculation + US - the spiral that causes war unintentionally even though both countries don’t actually go to war just thinking they’re reacting

Search: Off-shore balancing + Foreward deployment + Asia IN GOOGLE SCHOLAR

OBJ AFF (VOLDERMORT)

= Rape in Cambodia J

Yay win those 2 thingies. My refusal to take proper notes is because I hate this affirmative (Kathryn said this not Chander)

DRONES AFF

Robot war – getting the book now

Robot wars = autonomous drones soon – AI AWESOMENESS

Pakistan – hurts relatiosn and causes terrorism, destabilizes the country; Pakistan collapse advantage

Need a card that says because there’s no ppl in it, it encourages violent actions since no American lives lost; answers the turn that aff causes more ppl to flood in

Law of war card – could be plan mechanism or at least an I/L

Search: Customary international law AND (Drones OR UAV) - Key to stop them all over the world

GENDER AFF


 * Get the Sex Among Allies Book!!!! – Assigned to: ZOFIA (Beware you are in the notes)**

Anti-prostitution laws being circumvented/Inherency cards found

I/L’s found – S. Korea blaming US because government taken stuff to stop prostitution, but it’s mainly the US who ironically still does it – the public really dislikes US troops

Coerce sex workers into thinking it’s their responsibility to do this, but they’re viewed simultaneously as dirty and bad – found ev on this

Find more ev on the Filipinos

Search: South Korea AND sex trafficking AND (military OR troops)

Fwk card found for setting a precedent for gender violence is more important even if it costs military heg – it’s good that it says we need to withdraw as well. This part is crucial!

=Thursday July 22, 2010=

**IRAQ AFFIRMATIVE**
2 Possible 1ac’s – 1 colonialism/orientalism stuff other is policy version USFG should abide by the SOFA agreement POLICY 1AC DUE BY TOMORROW – advantages: Iraqi stability, US Leadership Need: terminal impacts for Iraqi stability Specific cards we need: 1) Current time table won’t be met – at least **2** cards on this a. Oil b. Ongoing violence as an excuse to stay c. US fears that our work isn’t done yet

Iraq Stability: 2) Stable now, on brink of violence – the longer we stay the worse it will get – Reese AND Jerar card on this

3) US troops attract violence/aggressive moves by Al Qaeda/milita groups against US

4) Violence will escalate (IMPACT), go nuclear, etc – a. ONLY escalate if US is there b. Middle East most likely place where nukes, violence, etc (specific to Iraq)

5) Iraqi security forces/GOI are capable of maintaining order – won’t succumb to disintegration scenarios – AT: why else we may cause instability

6) US forces cannot do anything more at all

7) We can get out by 2011

US Leadership

1) Credibility low now due to Iraq – general uniqueness argument that it has waned over the last few years

2) Breaking the SOFA would uniquely damage credibility

3) Impacts – cred key leadership, leadership key nuke war

4) Abide by SOFA solves credibility

**AFGHANISTAN AFF**
3 advantages – I-law via CIL, Paki-instability, Robot ethics advantage LOOK INTO TONIGHT: Drones destabilizes Afghanistan, unstable spreads throughout region, destabilizes Pakistan, that spreads OR paki-relations key regional stability

Outline: Plan: Drones in Afghanistan violate CIL via Supreme Court

Adv 1: I-Law

1) Drones violate I-Law

2) Law of War Good – stops bad wars – violate Geneva convention or laws of war –specificity please à Leads to torture, etc; Slobodan Milosevic

3) Good for SCOTUS to rule on I-Law of War (if specific to drones, preferred)

Adv 2: Pakistan instability

4) Brink of instability

5) Drones destabilize – 2 I/L’s: 1) resentment 2) terrorist recruitment 3) drones don’t do anything good (preempt the neg)

6) Solvency – w/drawing drones helps stability

Adv 3: Robot war Ddw10.wikispaces.com – ROBOT COMPENSATION CARD – look at that

1) No robot war now

2) Drones are the beginning in RMA à start of robot wars

3) Robot war = terminator – 2020!!!

4) Morality cards – no matter what, robot war is wrong; immoral shit man

5) Drones absolutely morally wrong; reduces threshold for violence all that stuff

It’s a good tie-breaker as well

**GENDER AFF**
Plan: USFG should remove its military and police presence from South Korea.

Adv 1: Prostitution

1) It’s illegal in squo – thrives around military bases 2) Squo policies to stop it fail 3) Military policies have encouraged prostitution/coerced women into it – Filipinos trafficked 4) Prostitution degrades women 5) Current efforts to stop sex trafficking fail because we’re going against our own policies 6) W/drawal solves prostitution AND sextrafficking (you want to say sexist/RACIST as well sexist – asian women are viewed as expendable)

Adv 2: Militarized Masculinity

1) Military = violent, sexist institution (SPECIFIC to South Korea)

2) Pre-empts to DA’s – made-up threats of North Koreans etc DA’s

3) Gender Impact calc

**TURKEY**
Plan: USFG removes B-61 bombs from Turkey

Water wars – Syria/Israel huge dispute; pulling out Turkey nukes = bridges the dispute, put SS water into Israel and solves water conflict – NEED SPECIFICITY

Adv 1: Water wars

1) Syria/Israel brink of fighting

2) Fighting = conflict

3) Nuke War – escalates (NEEDS to be specific)

4) W/drawing nukes = lets turkey bridge conflict

Adv 2: Iran

1) Want to prolif now, but not doing so cuz of Israel/US

2) Removing TNW’s increases Turkey’s cred in mid east – can mediate conflicts

3) Iran profli = nuke war

4) Removing TNW Increases legitimacy on non-prolif efforts in general

5) Solves

Adv 3:

1) Turkey-Iran all right, w/drawing weapons key make them great

2) Turkey key negotiations

3) Opens talks between US-Iran

4) New impact scenario ala le Lamballer

5) Aff solves

**OFF-SHORE BALANCING**
Plan: w/draw all military presence from S. Korea and Japan [do it phasing]

Adv 1: Chinese hegemony 1) Miscalc war between US-China 2) Decline of heg is inevitable/US heg is useless 3) China will pressure north korea – key agreement to solve nukes 4) Generic Asia war solvency – US w/drawal key

RESEARCH NORTH KOREA TONIGHT Find a public pressure card – if we w/draw from 1 country, other countries pressure us to w/draw from there too

Pre-empts to South Korean and Japanese prolif [INSERT CARDS FROM GENERIC – MONSTER ANSWERS]

Search: US China Spratley Islands

**VOLDEMORT**
Plan text – resolution 1 advantage – morality

5 I/L’s to morality 1) rules of engagement – constraints on troops = more likely to die; we have an obligation to them 2) In Iraq, social services implemented by the military terrible work, resources; when we go to war, we’re pampering the ppl and emboldens the ppl – makes us come off as weak 3) Because terrorists are using civilian casualties, they’re using civilians – civilian casualties are morally permissible in trying to save American lives 4) Foreward deployment is a violation of the Standing army principle 5) Any killing not in self-defense is immoral

HUGE DEFENSE of why morality is all that matters ad why liberty is the highest value

Lots of answers to US heg good. Kallahan, Gewirth – deontology straight up; no care about consequences

=Friday July 23, 2010=

Iraq Aff
- Find a new Inherency card (replace BackBack card) – less biased, less… crazy, more qualified - Second card not strong enough; the top of the card says even w/out a gov, Obama will pull out – this card says we will pull out – OPPOSITE of what we need - NEED PITT CARD IN 1AC - Chulov card needs to talk about long-term interests; it’s a little better but still not there - First time don’t say ISF – say Iraqi Security Forces instead – the second half should have a period and a capital letter; change the second half to staying longer weakens the government instead – clear language - Fifth card answers the continued strikeforce key Iraqi policeforcers arg, and that staying will help the gov – it’s a good card, gives warrants, timetable, etc; good card; if US was there and violence erupted, it would destroy partnership – that’s worse than if the violence occurred under the GOI’s rule; better influence by leaving - Fettweis – say no risk of escalation instead; good card; says surrounding states have no motivation to really go and invade Iraq; secondly, it turns the arg – they’ll cooperate to create a peaceful Iraq without US presence – EVEN IF THE NEG WINS Iraq needs outside interference to maintain stability, this card shows it would come from regional powers – it would be stable, just not w/US - Reese – very qualified; he’s actually BEEN there to Iraq, he makes the decisions on the ground; it’s a leaked report; hyper-qualified; says Gov is stronger, the ISF have dramatically improved and are capable of defending; Secondly, risks to the gov are decreasing – Al Qaeda is going down; finally, staying is not going to help anymore - 2nd Reese – fix run-on sentence in Tag; says presence of troops actually CAUSES insecurity; proves Al Qaeda discussions yesterday – until we invaded in 2003, there was none in Iraq; post-invation, they set up cells in Iraq; general public will succumb to resentment and side against government as well - Dobbins – makes claims but not as many warrants; there’s probably better cards in the 1AC that make this same claim – so just take this Dobbins card out; if we realize otherwise, we’ll look for another one - Jarrar #1 – good card, very solid on dissipates terrorism in Iraq; has added warrant of allowing national government to work versus puppet government - Jarrar #2 – credibility in Iraq is very relevant to governmental stability – end is good on why sticking to timeline is CRUCIAL to stability, government, solving terrorism, etc; very good card; the last line and combined with the fourth to last answers EVERY SINGLE CP – anything different doesn’t solve - London card is not specific to Iraq – plan doesn’t do anything for the other Middle East conflict scenarios; takeout London, put in a card about sectarian violence - Rework Impact COMPLETELY – sectarian violence --> Mid East war --> Escalates with other nations --> Nuke War; our claim should be that Mid East is stable, Iraq is the only catalyst for a war - Nye – No causal claims; just a normative arg that our power is declining; it is descriptive of the squo – it’s more of a non-unique for the advantage; it’s from 04!!! A year after the invasion of Iraq; no reason why our current strat hurts soft power; take out of 1AC - Jarrar #3-5 – REMOVE THEM - Dobbins – TAKE IT OUT - Jarrar #6 (the one about human rights violations tanking soft power) is good; we want a card similar to Jarrar’s 3-5 that say our international capital is tanking cuz of Iraq; if we gave ourselves 2 years to get ourselves out of Iraq, didn’t even condition it, and still couldn’t get out - Need impact to democracy

FIX PLAN: The United States federal government should abide by the United States’ Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.

- Solvency – warrant is that we need gov to follow through, and right now it won’t follow through – this is more of a fiat good card; retag – a promise to abide by sofa is key to prevent inevitable delays - TAKE OUT THIS JARRAR CARD WTF - Korb – good card! Card that quantifies the magnitude of the promise – breaking promise would make it that much worse; motive up to put it under the Jarrar card on the advantage Iran – Shariah Law; ppl try to say they’re more realist and have moved on, but if that’s the case then they’d still try to take over Iraq – the Iran-Iraq war was a war to determine who was the regional hegemon; Iran was more powerful, but US intervened to win it in order to prevent a huge middle eastern power that would be bad for oil and it’s an anti-western agenda, so that’s not good for the US. Gave them just enough weapons so it would be a stalemate – VERY similar to World War 1; it was the bloodiest war in Middle Eastern history

Take out the OR in the and/or Put a period

- Fix your run on sentence in your tag!!! - Schwartz needs better qualifications - The tag for the second card is more importantly - Third card – don’t say we’re fighting for freedom - 1AC you don’t really need numbers - Tag for #5 is better – it is the same as the #2; replace the card - You want the Brown ’95 card – it makes a slippery slope arg; violations of freedom not logically different than the atrocities of Cambodia, Nazi Germany, etc; no logical endpoint; utilitarian impact to their claims - Cap upholds the public good/free market solves all - Rockwell card – economic principles/theory must determine all policy-making

Drones
- It’d be good if the Singer card was specific to Afghanistan SEARCH: (Drones OR UAV) w/30 Afghanistan

Plan – UAV’s are a violation of CIL NOT RULE ON CIL…

- Need CIL NOT IL; customary is key - Relations advantage – Iodhi card – fix tag; first sentence irrelevant, and relations on brink of collapse DUE TO tensions not the other way around - Find something better than Sid-Ahmed – because it assumes on US attack, and a nuclear attack - Search terms for transhumanism, cyborg - Search for global robot tech prolif – like if Iran got a hold of it  - UN-UNDERLINE the Second Sparrow Card - Tag Weber as CIL not IL  - Need to add a card that says drones are immoral - Put the 2020 t/f card in!!! - UAV faulty ev will be in the prolif lit – harder to control, more of them, accidents etc - Self-replicating cards would be awesome!!

South Korea
- Find a better card about the no choice for prostitution argument – worse forms of violence - Take out the parts of cards that are one-liners that say ‘I interviewed blah blah blah’ – instead, just put in a legitimate narrative from an individual - Have another couple cards like the huge URL one to answer the CP to simply increase anti-trafficking eff__o__rts - Parsons ev – cut it in terms of the above card so it makes it clear that we have to REMOVE the troops rather than just monitor in the other places; in fact it’s probably CP solvency – not central to 1AC - Retag the Zimelis ev!! - Need some more impacts

TNW Aff
- Takeout DOD from the plan text - Put Mid East solvency cards in the advantage (Hen-Toy card) to before the Mid East Web card - Re-label 'water wars' into Israel-Syria war - Have another I/L about tensions on the brink; that's the Darwish card - move that up after the NYT card - Add a card above the Lugar ev on adv 2 that says it solves Iran Prolif - Ask Alex for Israeli strikes on Iran bad cards -- 'sick cards bro'

=Saturday, July 24, 2010=

Counterbalancing Aff
Have a card that says we recently reduced troops in South Korea

DON’T capitalize the F and G in federal government! Resolution doesn’t.

Spelled redeployment and sheriff wrong

Have a card that goes straight from Chinese hegemony to war – NOT via relations; otherwise CP to solve relations w/out removing troops; easy to NON-u and answer too

Bandow is better – directly to war

Take out Christensen card

Cut more into the Layne cards – they talk about China; search: Layne “Offshore Balancing” China or Asia

Nanto tag is bad – ‘US presence in East Asia deters China from reigning in North Korea’; just get a better card on that – it doesn’t say which viewpoint is correct; Nanto just says there’s 2 viewpoints

If we have 2 advantages it should be Micalc and North Korea war – as of now, these two are the same advantage

WHAT SHOULD BE IN AFF FILES: 1) Fixed 1AC 2) Answers to Generic Arguments you’re going to hear – organize them into blocks – case and off-case positions that are specific to your case; case specific CP’s, etc Iraq – consult CP’s, have Iraq kick us out versus leave voluntarily Ptx Link turns Prostitution – change the laws but don’t w/draw troops CP

MAKING BLOCKS Put heading at the top – AT: Arg You’re Refuting Make arguments – numbered ARG FIRST then author Have extensions of 1AC args, make analytic arguments, indict their evidence, and use new 2AC cards Start things with *flowable* label!!

3) Put neg cards in a separate file – save them and during 2nd wave neg, that person can organize it; just put it in and save it for now All done with Dartmouth template, usable with paperless, needs to have an index

IMPACT CALCULUS
2 most common types of impact calc – utilitarianism v.s. deontology

Util – make our decisions based on the greatest good for greatest number of people - Weigh the overall benefit for everyone versus the overall cost to everyone

Deont – making decisions based on what is morally correct – consequences don’t matter; it’s based universal principles - Emmanuel Kant – ‘categorical imperative’ – to make something a moral rule, you have to say what would happen if everyone lived by this rule; if that consequence is a good thing, then you HAVE to do it

Debaters often pick one of the extremes; it’s a lot more reasonable to pick something in the middle Ex) Morality operates as a ‘side constraint’ that can only be overridden in extreme circumstances – Donnelly 95

Even w/in util and deontology, there’s a question of life versus other rights; it’s not JUST about body count – which is often what debaters focus on.

Phrase it in terms of human dignity, not value to life. Right to life – if you are dead, you can’t come back; you can recover from other things Dignity – emphasize probability and the magnitude of dignity loss

Williams 5 – think about what it is when you’re trying to maximize utility Rather than looking at total utility, look at minimal utility – Rawls – prioritize the interests of the least advantaged members of society; ‘veil of ignorance’ – if you didn’t understand who you were and what your social location was, you’d take into account the poor and the oppressed a lot more than you do now cuz you could be one of the poor! You don’t know

Consider your standpoint in society – Scott 99

Probability, magnitude, T/F

CP Theory
CP

Has to be mutually exclusive

Has to be an action that is different than the plan

**CP by itself has to be better than all of the plan and all or part of the CP – demonstrated through net benefits** - Usually a DA to a plan that the CP avoids This is better because otherwise, a permutation to do both becomes stronger!

Permutation has to include 100% of the plan, or all or part of the CP - reason why you shouldn't reject the aff; the plan in combination is the best option - still desirable any option that includes the entirety of the plan should be affirmative ground - stops extraneous CP's that don't test the desirability of the aff

ADV CP's are usually not mutually exclusive, they just have a DA they avoid; via net benefits

When you're negative, against the perm, say the perm still links to the net benefit!!! MUST evaluate the permutation as teh 1st thing when planning to go for a CP.

Textual competition: The text of the CP is 'less' than the plan - they remove/change 1 or more of the words that's in teh plan so that it doesn't include the same words - they can functionally do the plan/do more than the plan while retaining competition -- i.e. Word PIC - Process CP's are promoted by this

Problems with Textual competition: - pics out of small words that don't have functional difference -- trivial distinctions not relavent to policy - kills policy-focus - turns debate into a scrabble game versus best policy search

Good things w/textual competition: - allows the aff to choose what CP's are competitive - plan focus - all CP's are predictable based on what's on the plan

Functional CP's exclude: - consult CP's

Plan Inclusive CP -- includes part of the plan read DA's to the part the PIC excludes -- functionally competitive

PICs are justified -- plan-focused debate - competitive bcause the aff has to defend all of the plan - so focus in on the part of the plan you're really wanting to test

Consult CP's - are artificially competitive CP net benefit is consultation good - NOT plan is bad; if they had a relations DA, then they would have read that, but htey don't - they need the CP to artificially create competition CP only competes off of the idea of immediate/certain plan action There are a TON OF permutations: 1) Consult X and do the plan regardless of the outcome - either a) they're right X will say yes to plan which means they'll never know the consultation was not genuine or b) X says no and the case is a DA to the CP --> neg will say 1) it's a t/f perm - consultation then plan - pics out of immediacy of the plan ==> aff says COUNTERPLAN fiats in element of T/F NOT THE PERM - you're just permuting the t/f of the CP; justified by the illegitimacy of the CP; --> 2) neg will say X will perceive it's not genuine ==> aff wll have absolutely no way of finding out it's not genuine --> 3) they may read a leaks card - that someone will leak the ev ==> can read won't leaks; but say there's NO INFO TO LEAK - the perm isn't a calculated decision w/in the administration; permutation is just a theoretical test; no info to leak; decisions are made independently

Read a DA - we've already consulted most of our allies, consulting again would piss them off - we've known their position on this for years.

SUPER ADVANCED TRICK
C-x question: Do you allow for Japan to make minor modifications to the plan? If they say YES - permutation to do the plan and then consult Japan over minor modifications to the plan solves the ENTIRITY of the net benefit If they say NO - it's just a yes/no vote, then that opens up that IT DOESN'T SOLVE RELATIONS - not genuine consultation --- NOT what their ev is talking about; sharing interests, coordination, etc

LOGIC PERM Permute: do the plan and consult Japan - explain that the CP requires setting up the consultative fwk - you could do that while still doing the plan. NO EV about why we need to consult them about the plan. If they actually had a card, they'd run it as a DA.

Make the artificial competition argument abundantly clear. - that if they had an actual arg it'd take the form of the DA.

Perm: Do the CP - CP isn't textually competitive; if you win textual competition you win (or C-Interp that CP's have to be textually and functioanlly)

=Monday, July 26, 2010=

Notes from this morning's demonstration debate:
1. No spillover is a great argument to make against politics - you don't even need a card. Phrase it analytically as:

No spillover - Congress considers issues individually - they'll vote on START based on ideology and relations with Russia, not based on what's going on in the Middle East

2. Weak vs. strong analyticals - instead of just pointing out when they don't have a card, explain why their assertion is untrue - this will hold up even they do read a card that says something

3. Attack the impact - these are easy to answer analytically Example: Economic decline is empirically denied by the current recession, the tech bubble, and stagflation; recession won't cause depression; the economy is resilient

Writing a Case Negative:
Neg assignments - see "assignments" page under Kernoff-Lamballe Lab

1. Check out the 1ACs on the wiki. Figure out what the plans and advantages are 2. Re-read key affirmative articles. Look for counterplans, alternate causalities, etc. 3. Check out the files in the institute library. Figure out their add-ons and their answers to affirmative arguments 4. Do additional research. Look for articles that cite affirmative authors and disagree with them. Use affirmative search terms but be sure not to waste your time cutting affirmative cards 5. Organize case arguments into frontlines and extensions. Be sure you have a frontline to each advantage (all labs) 6. Write case-specific CPs and other arguments 7. Adapt generic arguments to be as specific as possible 8. Write blocks to answer likely affirmative arguments

We will hear 1NCs in lab - Michael should be ready to deliver a Turkey TNW 1AC tomorrow.

Topicality Notes:
T clash drills for tomorrow: Stick to the SOFA is not a decrease 1NC - Zofia 2AC - Zach 2NC - Elissa 1AR - Annalise 2NR - Varun 2AR - Helen

Military presence doesn't include drones 1NC - Jake 2AC - Alex 2NC - Taylor 1AR - Parth 2NR - Kentucky 2AR - Michael

Military presence doesn't include combat troops 1NC - Giovanni 2AC - Shannon 2NC - Angela 1AR - Alec 2NR - Sheryar 2AR - Jonathan

A good 1NC shell on T: A. Interpretation/Definition - it's important to have a card here or it's bad for affirmative predictability

Definitions by experts and definitions in the context of the topic Intent to define/exclusion - definitions that aren't specific/exclusive mean that it's illogical to exclude the affirmative

B. Violation - usually pretty obvious but needs to be specific - sometimes you may need to read cards (like SOFA is the baseline in the status quo)

C. Reasons to prefer - the most important part of the T violation Usually people make too many of these - pick one or maybe two where you're ahead

Limits - limit on the number of affirmatives - increases the negative's research burden - decreases clash You should say the BEST limit is good, not necessarily the SMALLEST limit - explain why your limit is good for the affirmative and the negative Even more important - explain why the affirmative UNLIMITS the topic to make it disastrously huge

Ground - for example, SOFA steals neg ground by doing the status quo - it makes it hard to win uniqueness for DAs Not the best standard: there's always ground - they still have links - no right to specific ground - if you're the status quo, they can defend that a change from the status quo is good; it's hard to quantify "ground loss"

Predictability - most predictability arguments are really just about limits - it can be good if your card is within the context of the literature on the topic

Framer's intent - there's no way to know what the framers want and they may not be right - for the combat troops T violation, instead argue it would make a lot of the topic irrelevant - Iraq and Afghanistan are the most interesting and relevant part of the topic

"Brightline" - with SOFA, argue instead that the aff mixes burdens by requiring you to resolve the inherency debate and figure out what's going to happen in the future - this makes debate much less predictable

Grammar - if they define and/or as and, that's clearly ignoring the /or

Only plans have to be topical - advantages don't have to be - "framework" is the argument that the affirmative should defend the plan as implemented by the United States federal government It's OK if the plan has the effect of increasing troops as long as the plan decreases troops

D. Voting issue - just say topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education Jurisdiction only matters if they don't have a counter-interpretation

2AC on Topicality 1. We meet - there's no violation - you fall under their interpretation Don't argue you meet if you clearly don't

2. Counter-interpretation - make sure you meet it, but you don't have to say it It needs to clash with the negative's interpretation - it should be "competitive" with it - define the same words in a way that disproves their argument

The focus of the T debate should be why your interpretation is better Arguing that you are more limiting is generally a bad idea - it's usually very difficult to have a definition that's more limiting than the affirmative Precision - definitions in the context of the topic are more predictable Ground - "better" ground Neg overlimits - they exclude key areas of the topic Small topic means you learn about a narrow set of things More diverse means less fun - debate becomes repetitive Good limits makes the best balance of the two - even if there are many different affs, you still get depth Good for creativity/divergent thinking

Limits -Argue that overlimiting is bad -Argue that you don't destroy limits - substantial checks, generics check -DON'T say "only our case is topical" - it has nothing to do with the resolution, it's based on a misunderstanding of limits,

Ground -Explain why there's always ground

Reasonability -You should say this in every 2AC -Competing interpretation is bad - it becomes a "race to the bottom" - the negative can always find a more limiting interpretation (the neg may not explain limits this way) -Competing interpretations encourages people to go for theory over substance -Reasonability is not about whether the aff meets - it's about how the T debate should be decided - reasonability is about having a high threshold for voting on topicality

=Tuesday, July 27, 2010= Agenda for today: 1. Turkey TNW 1NC 2. Assign 1NCs for tomorrow and discuss strategies for them - South Korea prostitution, drones, Iraq, objectivism 3. Explain Thursday's practice debates 4. Discuss strategies against other cases 5. T clash drills

Kritikal South Korea
(Taylor + Giovanni) - Case args/adv frontlines - CP – changing us policies for prostitution - PGS DA  - Read a DA we can defend against the case as well – coordinate with Annalise – most true, T/ Case - Look to generics of feminism critique answers – essentializing, reinforcing binary between men and women; make sure Goldstein card is in there – war is the root cause of gendered violence, and gendered violence NOT root cause of war (makes both those claims)

Policy South Korea
(Annalise) - CUT North Korea DA – this is more true – sidesteps aff offense of this is just an excuse to abuse women (for K version) General structure of 1NC by tomorrow

Drones
(Zofia) - Pic out of I-Law – make sure CP just bans drones EVERYWHERE – that way solve everything; solves spillover advantages – bans robots worst case as well - Impact turn I-Law – college topic wiki 06-07; neg to Georgia CL  - Feminist critique of banning drones – specific to drones, good ev – in the generics Fem File - Make an arg that in absence of drones there’ll be people there fighting terrorists – say troops would be worse - Alt cause – other countries use drones too; look for a card that US won’t pressure Israel/Israel won’t care - Cut a DA to using the courts – email Kade.Olsen@gmail.com – ask for cites that says courts intervening w/military = court stripping, and the deference for military key military effectiveness - Find cards about Israeli lobby – Mearsheimer ‘light reading’

Policy Iraq
(Alec) - Leave troops in Kurdish region for stability – prevents whole new revolution - T combat troops will be much better after August 31st - Better until then to read can only be combat troops - Reverse ptx – Obama bad; read conditions CP with this - Probably need softpower answers

K Iraq
- Request CP – probably better against the K aff - Referendum of the public and decide what the US should do  - Security K Aff answers file – good framework answers - Bogged down in Iraq = decreased pulic support for war - If they do go for global colonialism, say Obama won’t do everything – intervene everywhere; except Afghanistan - Get stuff from policy Iraq – says violence/instability turns – explain why it turns case - Read redeployment DA and stuff

OBJ
- Morality stupid – Kettles 96; just war theory (search specific to genocide) - OBJ bad - CP Change rules of engagement read disads to withdrawal - PDD 25 – conditions set by Clinton; stopped us from solving genocide in Rwanda – responses to that are advocates for intervening in genocide

Afghanistan
- Stop doing nationbuilding activities, but don’t w/draw troops - Redeployment DA – definitely turns overstretch claims - Cards on why non-nation building activities – mutually exclusive – why those solve better - Look for a way to solve military recruitment w/in the same CP  - Cut answers to overstretch as well

Counter-Narcotics + End surge
(Parth) - Russian relations; look for Russia doesn’t want massive influx of heroine - Stop doing counter-narcotics but keep troops - Consult Jurga CP

Policy Japan
(Kentucky & Japan) - Turn Japan militarization – no way they solve that - Warming adv is wayyy too stupid

Japan Immortality Aff
- Have just US do Aegis stuff and then Aegis good with net benefit ptx - CP solving BMD – probably good; check perm answers

Japan Prostitution
- Same/similar to South Korea

South Korea Military Practices/South Korea withdrawal
(Annalise) - Conflict w/North Korea inevitable; if we leave, China will solve that - Look for ev that says N. Korea will never settle for that deal - Japan alt causality HUGE arg against 2nd advantage
 * NONE of their ev says sthat – really bad

**Lazers can be a net benefit to all the CP’s that don’t withdraw the troops**


 * Michael – PGS DA – resend it; work with Jonathan tonight **


 * Search terms: Conventional global strike, Prompt global strike, Conventional Trident, Forward deployment **

=**Wednesday July 28, 2010**=

Ways to make the Iraq aff more topical:
 * -A substantial reduction is 25% decrease from the budgeted baseline**
 * -Obama and congress have already budgeted for the SOFA**
 * -you have to decrease the actual troop number or funding for the portion of the program that sustains our military presence (a decrease in number of troops as measured by the budget)**
 * -SOFA/the budget aren’t necessarily binding—just because there’s money that is budgeted right now doesn’t mean we will stick to it**
 * -it only eliminates perception based DAs which aren’t even that important for debate—outcome based DAs and case debates are better**

Aegis aff-Why it isn’t topical:
 * -it doesn’t actually withdraw our presence, it just reduces cooperation and may eventually result in an actual decrease**
 * -Japan refers to the landmass of the island, not the surrounding waters**
 * -Japan doesn’t want to rearm in the sqo—the only reason Japan wants to rearm is if America leaves**
 * -aegis doesn’t violate article 9 because it’s just self defense—and Japan isn’t actually going to revise article 9**

South Korea Prostitution 1nc
 * Counterplan:**
 * South Korean rearm disad: US presence prevents South Korean rearrment/prolif à east asian arms race**
 * North Korea disad: US presence the only thing keeping stability in North Korea. US withdrawal leads to North Korean prolif à asian arms race and miscalculation**
 * Redeployment disad: we redeploy to Guam; Guam redeployment destroys US power projection in Asia; Heg k2 solve every impact ever**
 * Commodities advantage: their internal link is based on the military existing, means prostitution inevitable; South Korean prostitution is inevitable; removal of US troops doesn’t solve, because it’s a cycle and they’ll be redeployed; Philippine government means prostitution inevitable; utitl**
 * Intersectionality: their evidence is all instances of racism, etc, and they only solve one instance; causes more marginalization; aff is self-defeating, their discourse essentializing women and reentrenches gender binaries**


 * Thoughts: the Guam DA ev is about redeployment from Okinawa, so we should try to underline it to discuss East Asia in general.**
 * Read the Guam DA as a case turn—redeployment means more prostitution in Guam (we should look up if prostitution is legal there)**
 * North Korean disad shouldn’t be about prolif but rather about North Korean aggression and how they’d be emboldened to start a war—someone should cut a card that says war causes structural violence—that’s on page 186 of the fem IR generic (case turn card about war hurting women); put a war turns the case card at the end of the disad**
 * More research on the CP**
 * Take out the arg about prostitutes from Russia because aff solves demand for prostitution**

OBJ 1nc:
 * The USFG should reduce its military presence elsewhere**
 * Turkey prolif da: keeping US weapons in Turkey is k2 solve Turkish proliferation**
 * Turkish politics: Orgea loses now; the plan is unpopular with the Turkish public; Orgea gets credit for the plan; key to US-EU relations; nuclear war**
 * Morality: morality bad à violence; their call to morality destroys politics—places decisions in the realm of abstract reason; political action is a prerequesite to freedom, ensures some V2L; gov intervention good—k2 solve genocide, which is the ultimate moral imperative**
 * Util: util is good/important; util is inevitable; only consequentialism solves competing moralities; life is a prerequesite to morality; consequentialism k2 politics; once an action enters policy realm, consequentialism is key to avoid bad results;**


 * Thoughts: put all morality bad/util good stuff in one place, and on morality have reasons the aff isn’t moral (to be moral, we need to care about other people; altruism good, property rights bad); don’t read the political action good card because the aff is political action**
 * Cut Bauman?**
 * Read a heg disad**

Drones 1nc:
 * Counterplan: ban UAVs; incorporating CIL turns the aff; kills cooperation; relations k2 stability; extinction; US-India relations k2 democracy**
 * Ilaw: realism, states act in self-interest; Israel disregards Ilaw; incorporating Ilaw=backlash and treaty violations; Ilaw is resilient; US Ilaw is binding internationally; alt causalities for US Ilaw credibility; ilaw fails**
 * US-Pakistan relations: they’ll remain high; no offense—Pakistan gets crushed; no airway-too expensive**
 * T: presence excludes weapons systems; limits, contextuality**
 * Fem IR: drones draw bodily delineations/separations**


 * Thoughts: make the Cp not use the courts and read a courtstripping NB**
 * Find a better T card**
 * Recut the entirety of the drones article**

Iraq 1nc:
 * Topicality-reduction must be quantifiable decrease from 25% of the baseline**
 * PIC: the USFG should withdraw troops from IRaw but leave troops in the Kurdish region until conflict has been resolved; Kurdish war turns case à civil war**
 * Security: orientalist discourse of middle eastern security; reentrenches orientalist racial hierarchies; reject demand for immediate policy options;**
 * Disad: removing troops slowly now; redeployment from iraq to COIN; extension of COIN kills heg; heg is awesome**
 * Heg: no internal link, economy hegemony is different; hegemony causes war; instability; us heg is unsustainable**
 * Stability: Kurds blame Maaki; his power is k2 stability; turns case**


 * Thoughts:**
 * Take out the heg impact to the DA and cross apply the aff impact**
 * Take out the heg turns**
 * More stability defense**
 * Education rather than limits arg on T**

Electives:
 * Topicality:**
 * Precision is key to check ambiguity: you want an interpretation that lists what is topical and why (source, quality, context/intent to define, and grammar)**
 * 1nc should have more developed arguments than are made in the block because it prevents the 1ar from making more answers**


 * Ways to improve speaker points:**
 * Slow down and be clear**
 * Looking like your prepared**
 * Make good historical analogies; be informed**


 * Answers the K:**
 * The affs focus on framework and linkturns, but that’s bad. Focus on how the alt doesn’t do anything.**
 * Use 1nc CX to stick them to the alternative—use the 2ac to talk about what the alternative would look like in the real world**


 * Framework:**
 * Don’t make really extreme frameworks—just make arguments as to why you get your aff or K**
 * It’s a race to the middle—no one is going to vote on “you don’t get the K” or “you don’t get your aff”**
 * Don’t read framework as a theory argument—read it as a substantive argument (discourse shapes reality is a substantive argument, not a theoretical reason to reject the aff)**


 * Answering Politics:**
 * Intrinsicness, YAYYY.**
 * Read thumpers**
 * Use CX to destroy the internal link story**

Framework** The neg can read Ks of the plan but can’t wish away the rest of the 1ac—we should get to weigh our case, because we should look at the specific context of how representations are used

The alt doesn’t solve the case (security rhetoric is key to congress passing the aff), and the alt doesn’t solve the K (the alt cannot eliminate all security rhetoric in other countries, etc)

Permutation: say something specific to the alternative

No impact/case o/w

Focus on discourse trades off with policy action

No link/no internal link

=Thursday July 29, 2010=

Notes from electives:
-When doing impact calculus, remember the line-by-line is the main determinant of probability -Be sure to answer the impact calculus the other team makes -Talk about how your impact turns their impact -Argue that timeframe is important because there are intervening actors - the longer an impact takes, the more likely it is we would find a way to solve it -Don't try to win magnitude, probability, and timeframe

-If you want to go for a kritik, practice explaining it to non-debaters so it makes sense and you can explain it -The framework, permutation, and alternative debate are all related

-In the 1AR, grouping and hard numbering are very important -Write how much time you will use on each flow and leave a 30 second -You can sneak in new arguments as answers to their arguments

-2 purposes of overviews: 1. Say something that can't be said on the line-by-line because there's no place for it or 2. Say something that applies to multiple 2AC arguments so you don't have to repeat it

-Treat advantages like disadvantages - if you wouldn't drop a disad, don't drop an advantage

-Predictability and ground can be used against the negative - the neg always has ground

-To make the 2NR easier, structure your block carefully so you don't have to explain things in the 2NR -Reduce the number of off-case arguments you extend so you can really hammer the 1AR

-Don't be distracted by 1AR mistakes when deciding what to go for in the 2NR - you have to beat the best possible 2AR

=Friday July 30, 2010= Agenda for today: 1. Debrief practice debates 2. 1NCs: Iraq colonialism (tomorrow), Afghanistan counter-narcotics, Surge, Okinawa, Futenma, South Korea military exercises 3. New assignments 4. T clash drills 5. Write Iraq T block

3rd wave aff arguments to answer:

General: South Korea FTA politics DA Turkey TNWs: Israel/Syria impacts South Korea prostitution: CP to solve without removing troops, politics links/turns re-do gender aff adv

Neg Drones: AT: robowars (robot rights?) South Korea: North Korea war Politics updates; new scenario; Winners win answers The nature of China Heg defense

=Saturday July 31, 2010= Sunday: Do research, read your files, prepare for your debates

Generic clash drills for Monday:

Alex: Angela and Alex - Heg DA (vs. Turkey) Zofya and Jonathan - Heg DA (vs. drones) Shannon and Taylor - Heg DA (vs. gender)

Chander and Kathryn: Kentucky and Michael - Security K (vs. drones) Sheryar and Varun - Security K (vs. Iraq) Alec and Zach - Fem IR (vs. Turkey) Parth and Helen - Security K (vs. Iraq) Annalize and Giovanni - Security K (vs. drones) Elissa and Jake - Security K (vs. drones)

=Tuesday August 4, 2010= Agenda for today: 1. Note: Thursday lab is in Brown, NOT Carpenter 2. Disclose affirmatives 3. Discuss negative strategies 4. Disclose negatives 5. Prep for debates

=Thursday August 6, 2010= Agenda for today: 1. Debrief practice debates 2. Discuss CP to solve North Korea (policy version): http://www.cfr.org/publication/13593/sixparty_talks_on_north_koreas_nuclear_program.html# 3. Discuss CP to solve prostitution (http://www.examiner.com/x-24740-Norfolk-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d8-US-military-personals-creates-demand-for-sex-trafficking-in-South-Korea)

Drones Aff Work on AT: T-Drones not military presence AT: Supreme Court can't reduce Court don't link to politics CP to cite and not rule CIL, AT: court stripping, backlash against CIL, spillover in the US Better impact to Pakistan collapse

Iraq Obama is committed to SOFA, Obama isn't committed to SOFA from a few days ago

Turkey TNWs More AT: Condition CP Revised 1AC with better impacts, solvency

Gender K of DA - go through fem IR file AT: Victimization (meet with Kathryn to discuss) Link turns for troop presence Re-tag the 1AC to set up K of DA

Israel - AT: Israel DA (vs. Iraq)

Politics updates AT: South Korean FTA Politics impact turns

=Friday August 6, 2010=

Notes on debating K affs:

= =