BQ+Lab+Notes

=Lab Notes for the BQ Lab= Things we want to Discuss toc = July 19 = everyone should take the lab questionnaire tonight

** Affs we will write **
**Turkey**- TNWs Riyaz, Michael, Michelle, Vivian **Iraq**- stick to the timeline Nathan, Nolan, Hannah **Afghanistan**- counter insurgency vs counter terrorism Ben, Ethan, Miranda, Krishan, Meghna Daniel, Elina, Niki, Josh Zulian, Andrew, Laura, Tyler
 * South Korea**- Stop military training
 * Japan**- remove marines from okinawa

Possible Affirmatives Withdraw troops Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) Remove predator drones Elim PMCs from Afghanistan Withdraw troops (local/warlords adv) Stop engaging in counter insurgency Close Okinawa bases (possible US primacy bad adv- offshore balancing) Withdraw US marines (north korea relations adv) Stop military training in South Korea Prostitution aff Stick to withdrawal timeline (or in Afghanistan) Withdraw troops (in respect to troops in iraq?) Withdrawing tropps to solve US heg bad Terror talk –baudrillard
 * Turkey **
 * Afghanistan **
 * Japan **
 * South Korea **
 * Iraq **
 * Kuwait **
 * K affs **

1. cut neg cards along with aff cards 2. compile the research with your group every night and send it in 3. USE THE TEMPLATE 4. only use DDI evidence

=July 20=

Agenda
1. Awesome video - Honey Badger 2. Template Fun 3. Review Assignments 4. Clash Drill Assignments

Template Fun BQ is spending the first hour working on making sure everyone is comfortable with cutting cards using the template. It is fun, we found out news about Lindsay Lohan.

Review Assignments
Affirmative Outlines for the 5 Affirmatives we started working on yesterday.

1. Turkey - TNW's 2. Okinawa - Japan 3. South Korea Military Exercises 4. Iraq Timetable Withdrawal 5. Afghanistan Counter-Terrorism Good, Counter-Insurgency Bad

Okinawa Affirmative Tyler, Laura, Andrew, Zulian

This group split into critical vs. policy advantages.

Policy Version
 * Democracy?
 * Relations?
 * Hegemony bad and offshore balancing.
 * Japan is a good starting point to shift to [|offshore balancing]
 * Offshore balancing says that instead of the US being the police of the world, we should have allies in each region that serve as regional powers
 * Might be an advantage to decreasing troops
 * Suggests that the US retreat to protecting its own turf and balancing power cooperatively with other allied nations
 * Good article by Mearsheimer [|here] that explains how offshore balancing would work in the modern world

Critical Version
 * Imperialism
 * US projects empire and allows them to attack
 * This view is skewed and allows them to attack
 * Prevents ties with China etc.
 * Question of spillover with regards to global spillover
 * Patriarchy
 * Rapes murders and thefts of US forces in Japan
 * Probably a lot more unreported
 * US military looks the other way sometimes - slaps on wrist
 * Problem connecting to broader patriarchy impacts
 * Potential spillover card?
 * Andrew reminded us of Kade's topic lecture comments - addressing how soldiers deal with East Asian people could be important
 * Sex trade?
 * How the soldiers view Asian women?
 * Zulian wonders whether the connection could be through imperialism's masculinity

Options/Discussion
 * Does imperialism work with offshore balancing?
 * What about relations?
 * Environment?
 * Miranda pointed out that those schools of thought would be incompatible.
 * Probably any impact to offshore balancing link to the imperialism impacts.
 * Prevents some of the cool K aff stuff.
 * Niki asked what would deter other hostile countries in that region if the US pulls out. This is a good negative question that the aff will have to consider.
 * Robbie pointed out that the US might support Japanese military strength.
 * Vivian pointed out that even negotiations could be a form of imperialism because you are imposing your world view on another country.
 * Question of permanent military presence - bases - vs. temporary involvement.
 * Potential neg strategy - Chinese regional involvement?
 * Nolan wonders whether we could use relations and not paying for the base along with some of the imperialism arguments.

Tonight
 * Environment
 * Costs of the Base

Turkey Affirmative Possible advantages:
 * West/East divisions
 * Lots of cards that TNWs aren't key
 * Lots of NATO troops in Turkey
 * Second Possibility = US military
 * Terrorism
 * Theft
 * Accidents
 * Deterrence bad?
 * Iran?
 * Turkey doesn't have aircraft

Tonight
 * Turkish independence
 * Europe/NATO advantage?
 * Terrorism

South Korea Affirmative
 * US and South Korean joint exercises to respond to and deter NK
 * Relations with China
 * Relations with North Korea
 * US and SK conceded - instead of having it near China's coast, they have it on the other side
 * Can get training elsewhere - just for show
 * Asymetrical warfare
 * Sanctions?
 * Nuclear discussions
 * SKFTA?

Afghanistan
 * Terrorism
 * Softpower
 * Nation building bad
 * [|Counterinsurgency] vs. [|Counterterror]
 * Pakistan

Iraq
 * Stick to the timetable
 * Obama won't stick to that timeline
 * Violence
 * Instability
 * Sends a signal to Iran/Afghanistan
 * Iraqi instability - presence = disaster

Tonight
 * AT: pullout instantly
 * America keeping word key - international signal
 * Oil

Reminders
1. No generics at night 2. Work hard tonight - kill an aff tomorrow 3. Clash drill info sent out at 9:30

=**July 22**= We did 2NR clash drills – Hannah, Ben, Michelle, Elina Then we did 2AR clash drills- Ethan, Michael, Krishan, Riyaz, Tyler

AFFS- outlines are in the google document that Maggie sent out for Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea

Afghanistan Aff Hegemony and Terror advantages Recut the DDW cards from the outline Must win that small terror forces are better then COIN For tonight: try to find cards that match up to this structure of the 1AC

Iraq Aff We already have a lot of these “obama won’t stick to timetable” type cards- pick out the best ones for the 1AC! Problems with dates of cards? Cards from 04 were talking about a totally different Iraq- need to have a really “new” aff

South Korea North Korea and China relations advantages Military presence- is stopping an activity but not withdrawing personnel a topical aff? Need interpretations of presence that talk about the influence that the presence brings not just the physical numbers of the presence Need answers to “we could do this without being aggressive”

Japan- Policy 1AC Inherency- A.US isn’t pulling out of Okinawa B. Delays mean the problem will get worse Relations Adv A. Relations on the brink now- Okinawa is central B. Pulling out of Okinawa improves relations in the long run C. Japan alliance key to things like energy, trade, etc. Offshore Balancing Adv A. Okinawa base is where the US projects is power in East Asia B. Other countries (China and NK) don’t like this C. Japan is a better balancer then the US in terms of checking China and North Korea

Japan- K version Patriarchy 1. US military engages in gender violence that goes unpunished 2. This is representative of greater patriarchal/ colonialist view we have with japan 3. Patriarchy leads to war and environmental extinction 4. Troop pullout key to solving patriarchy in this instance Imperialism advantage? AT Punish bad soldiers?

Imperialism Adv 1. US overstretched now- Okinawa is the lynchpin and US imperialism is unsustainable 2. removing troops unravels the imperialist chain 3. impacts- blowback, US would implode, etc.

for tonight library time- tonight and tomorrow afternoon we will present the 1ACs on saturday we need MUCH more evidence for these files Japan people- develop list for 2AC answers don't send files tonight- send them tomorrow before lab

=July 23= we picked electives and went over goals for camp everyone remember to set up dropbox!

"US military presence" is a term of art presence can be defined many ways- some definitions exclude combat troops or weapons or bases is presence combat or non combat? physical means vs. ends/goals intent of the resolution? mandating that troops be moved somewhere else- extra topical claiming that an advantage is an effect of the plan isn't extra topical- the plan fiats a topical action substantially checks certain affs- this is a good thing
 * Topicality**

maggie's best tip to neg debaters debating T- caselist examples that you should give should be cases that people would want to read if they were topical and then explain why that would be an unfair research burden

can you define presence differently in each country? intent to define- the evidence doesn't intend to characterize a certain word or phrase as a definition- they are just talking about the words will anyone read kuwait affs? RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

better against K affs then regular affs PMC Argument- private military groups that the US contracts with, the gov't is questioning the use of PMCs now substantial reduction in troops means that PMCs will be hired instead, PMCs are worse then most of the things the aff has identified as problems with the military uniqueness problems- the US is probably going to increase the use of PMCs now
 * PMC/Redeployment Disads**

Redeployment DA- after the troops get pulled out they will be redeployed somewhere else Afghanistan- pulling out troops from anywhere else means more troops in Afghanistan. troops in Afghan=bad Pakistan- obama has considered moving the war in Afghanistan to include parts of Pakistan- more troops means he would do this =more terrorism, unwinnable, etc. Guam- US redeploys to Guam (only applicable to Japan or SK affs), relocation to Guam is bad for the US (we can also use this scenario as an answer to other troop tradeoff DAs because there are a lot of Guam deployment good cards too) Iran- Obama has avoided hardline stance on Iran because he doesn't have enough troops to send there

Threaten Counterplan Allied Prolif DA
 * Allied Prolif Group** reported on their progress


 * 1ACS DUE TOMORROW!**

=July 26= second wave assignments- see wiki page we are cutting case negs!

get info about other labs affs- ask about add ons, solvency mechs etc. gather intel tonight so that you can efficiently cut case negs! be ready to report on this tomorrow we need more then links to generics- specific case arguments, adv counterplans, etc. read the affs articles

we discussed more generic work

domestic compensation/CMR work CMR Disad civil military relations- hard power impacts need to work on links?

CPGS prompt global strike- newnon nuclear weapon that obama will invest in removal of bases angers GOP- obama will invest in CPGS to appease them

compensation troops kill modernization of military- removing troops= more modernization=lasers

Gates DA plan angers Gates, he thinks US military operations are key (no kuwait/turkey links)

Security K fear of the outside, must secure ourselves against the threat of the outside top down approach- we will protect the state even if it results in a lack of security for the individual plan= legitimizes future state interventions

Feminism K about the way that we look at the international sphere through a masculine perspective must break this down to include feminist ethics

DROPBOX INSTRUCTIONS
1. Save your neg files under "Negative Assignments" (I know, I know, you probably could have figured that out). 2. You can keep editing the file from there - so just save the doc in there and update as you cut more cards each day. 3. Save the file as ddi10-BQ-NameofNegAssignment- YourName
 * __Negative Assignments__**

In order to use the files (right now only affs), you need to do the following: 1. RIGHT CLICK on a file. 2. Select "COPY." 3. Go to the place you want to save the file (outside of the BQ lab folder). 4. RIGHT CLICK in the folder. 5. Select "PASTE."
 * __Using the Files__**

=July 27= Negative Discussion

=August 2= tomorrow we have disclosure day! tonight by 7PM, put your 1ACs in the dropbox- no changes after that lable your 1AC document BQnamename1AC.doc (i.e. BQsohoniehrlich1AC.doc)

lab starts at 1PM tomorrow. be there early!

tonight- prepare for generic arguments that other labs have written coercion israel DA consult NATO Consult Japan Terror Talk Prolif K Cap K Russia Misperception DA Chaloupka K Positive Peace Nuclearlism K

specific arguments that other labs have written
 * Japan Policy Aff**- china adv cp, US-Japan Alliance CP, Substantially= 50%, New Compensation DA, Futenma PIC, Big Cooperation CP, Alliance Bad turns, Heg Good DA, Japan Rearm DA, Allied Prolif, Reverse Island Hop
 * Afghanistan Aff-** Jirga CP, Taliban Heg DA, Russian Relations DA, Security K, Afghan Politics, CP to increase recruitment, Tribal Engagement PIC, Conditions CP, Politics, Heg DA,
 * Japan K Aff-** Counterplan to move futenma and to give Japan jurisdiction (NB is the US Japan Alliance), East Asian Stability turns, Gender K, Essentialism turns, Marginalization turns, Guam Shift DA, Train Troops CP, Fleet PIC
 * South Korea Aff-** CP to remove nearly all troops, Pan K, south korean defense spending bad, six party talks kills US china relations, KORUS relations key to Japan Relations, Allied Prolif, Politics, Plan kills chinese relations, Conditions CP

=August 5= notes are sporadic today- the 14s are finding out housing. this is stressful and important we discussed our neg debates during practice rounds

Iraq Courts aff advs based on the fact that they are there is illegal- PIC out of the removal of troops? impact turns to ILAW

Drones Aff don't actually remove drones, just try to stop their usage

Afghanistan COIN Aff don't withdraw CP- their heg adv is an answer

Counternarcotics rural development PIC- apparently not part of counternarcotics

Japan used links on the K and concessions that patriarchy is inev as reasons that they don't solve the case went for Guam redeployment turns case with conceded case arguments they made patriarchy inevitable claims on the K flow?

Futenma Aff T substantial- their counter interp was "substantial means anything politically important"- thats probably abusive- very arbitrary japan cooperation counterplan Patel evidence in the last 3 or 4 lines no good link turns for the START DA- only link turn is winners win.

Turkey conditions CP turkey politics DA isn't necessarily a NB to the CP

=August 6=

2AC Tips for CP Theory 1. Highlight Paragraph 2. Use Theory to justify your own arguments 3. Offense Defens- thoughtful Counter Interpretations 4. Relate this to what the topic looks like in a world of the neg's interpretation 5. Sense of History

T vs Theory interaction Theory vs K framework

How much time to spend on theory if you want to go for it 2AC- 20 seconds 1AR- either 1 minute (if your going for it as a reason to reject the argument) or 5 minutes (the all in strategy)

Conditions CP BAD 1. Research burden- lots of these CPs- this is super unpredictable, although it might be limited by the literature base 2. Limits Education- hurts literature based education 3. Plan Contingent, steals the 1AC and hurts Aff Competition 4. Timeframe Fiat= delay 5. Say no world sucks 6. say yes is subjective

Reasons to reject the team 1. Out of Round Research burden 2. No risk option 3. Scarlet Letter 4. Communal Norms/Teaching 5. Camp key 6. 2AC strat skew is irreparable 7. Aff will quit debate

Defending the Conditions CP Offense 1. Broad Education 2. Counterinterpretation- the goods 3. key to test kinds of foreign policy 4. key to check new affs 5. still falls within a logical policy making paradigm

Defense 1. allied prolif research is inevitable and predictable 2. 6 country research inevitable 3. lit checks (high threshold for solving advs)

Reasons not to reject the team 1. if its that strategic, its suffcient to reject the argument 2. no spillover to other flows 3. their answers=good 4. like T= gateway issue 5. more of a strat skew for the neg then the aff 6. theory is a no risk option/ theory is not educational, incentivizing teams to go for theory is bad, reject the arg

T o/w Theory dictates rounds prima facie burden only reason we have theory is because they aren't T

Theory o/w T dictates overarching rules of debate- establishes fair debate in general

=August 7=

Discussing New Argument from your Negatives -
__Counternarcotics Neg__ - would the "keep the troops there" CP work?; any other CP ideas? - Interdiction can't solve the drug problem in Afghanistan

__UNSC Colonialist__ - turn to Iraq Colonialism Aff

__G-20 South Korea Disad__ - recent, good, actual disad - to be ready against any Korea Aff, any controversy hurt Korea taking initiative, plan hurts Li, Li's leadership is key to G-20, G-20 key to solve global economic collapse;

__Drones links to Fem IR__ - flailing in the Internet

__Okinawa Kritik__ - Okinawa essentialized into homogenous identity; problems redeployed into larger issue, subverted by Japanese and US government; global movement vs. local movement - advantages to both;

__BMD Neg__ - Alliance DA - BMD key to alliance;

__Reverse Imperalism K__ - Essentialism; Stereotyping leads to Anti-Americanism

Answering the Security Kritik

AT: Security K 2.0
- Alternative is plan plus - stopping exercises is part of the alternative.

- North Korea is unique - they constructed us as a threat first - Discuss the history of the discourse and the origins of the problem

- Delineate between "real" and "false" threat con.

- Plan challenges our doctrine about North Korea.

**Perm - endorse the plan and be skeptical of unsupported representations**
- They say our reps are false and we need to reconsider our reps of the ME - but since we can prove that hegemony is able to prevent and deter conflicts, we might have more truthful representations

**How do you defend your representations and answer self-fulfilling prophecy arguments?**
- Historical events - How to prove that a threat is true or false? Neg - Meirsheimer false hasn't happened yet. Aff - Chinese nationalist statements, Japanese and Russian responses, studies and statistics. - Threat construction good - Need some securitization - still some threats so some securitization is needed when threats come? - Need specifics - when securitization has been used and worked and not lead to the impacts, when it might be necessary in the future in other areas. Examples of when the US has used securitization effectively. - Absence of threat construction can only be evaluated when it's too late - ex. Germany in '30s. - Questions of specific scenarios vs. "This place is just dangerous." - Different story for the setting of Asian instability - dispute the negative story.

Permutations
- If the neg doesn't make a severance bad on the "do both" perm, then the 1AR/2AR can spin the perm as being the plan absent the representations. - Use arguments on conditionality and other theory arguments to justify the permutations on the counterplan - especially why severance might be justified.

**Important questions about what the alternative is and how it works?**
- Question about whether securitization can be stopped at this point. - The more the neg tries to use the alt to capture a lot of impacts (via root cause arguments) the tougher it is to uproot them with the alternative. - Raising questions insufficient - but incorporating raising questions with the policy action would be far more effective.

**Non-theoretical answers to the floating PIC**
- Neg wants to have it both ways - sometimes they say that the policy and discourse are interlinked (in order to say that the aff can't sever the discourse) but the AIK wants to divide the plan from the representations. - Aff should say this proves we don't link because the neg concedes the reps CAN be separated from the policy.

Debating Framework and Representations Kritiks
- 2AC has to say that the judge should include the plan. - Evidence on representations only kritiks are bad. - Reasons that reps are important is that reps influence policy - if that's true, then the discussion of reps must include a discussion of policy. - Use the "representations important" evidence to demonstrate why it means that we need to look at the overall policy. - Say defend the reps IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAN. Discussion of whether we should have bases in a country can't be looked at without the threat con, but the opposite is also true - can't look at threat con without considering why/how the reps are being used. - Adler evidence - combine based on structure and history to supplement representations. - Question of how far the representations extend into the policy impacts - what the role of the 1AC advantages are in influencing the policy.

Judge Choice
- Advantages are reasons to vote for the plan - The judge can choose which reasons to vote for the plan at the end of the debate - You need another advantage or addon that doesn't link to go along with this

Impact Turning the K
- Alternative makes us vulnerable to future threats - Similar to securitization and threat construction good - Argue that the aff is a specific example of how TC is good - Important to pin down on the alternative in CX - do you reject all instances of securitization? - Impact turns that use defensible sources? - Use examples again - use non-IR examples of why securitization as an ideology might be effective - even in the everyday sense

Ontology First
- Neg says "gotta justify your ontology (way of being) first" - This arg is that your approach to the world is bad and you need to justify it before you can know anything about the policy or act in the world - neg says thinking about these things come first - Probably have to read evidence - representations inadequate because of idyllic world of the neg team - gotta make do with what we have and overcome the limitations of our representations - contingently accept things about the world without fundamentally questioning that world - Evaluate the plan as a justification of our ontology - Advantages are disads to the alternative - means not a reason to reject our ontology on face - "we meet" - our answers to the K are a defense of our ontology - Not come prior - just a part of - Perm and link turns are a defense of why you access their form of ontology - Can't eval ontology without empirically evaluating its result

2AC Checklist
- determine whether K is plan-based or representation-based (do we do the thing that they say is bad? - if based on plan, defend what you do is good; if no - if reps only, then choose between (1) reps and plan defense OR (2) reps only defense) - Answering Security with Kritik Aff's - US imperialism is the original cause of the wars the 1AC constructs - Reps middle ground (a) Reps should not be considered independent of policy (b) Read evidence why focusing on representations only is bad (c) multiple permutations - 1. severance - plan minus reps (justified by conditionality); 2. plan plus alt (d) Defense of the representations - winning the truth of the impact (e) Why the alternative fails to change representations

- answer ontology first - answer - your authors are all suspect - answering serial policy failure - (1) defense reps answers implicitly, (2) hold the explanation to specifics