RT+2010+Lab+Notes

=Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/20/2010 = toc · DRONES o Question of T § Plenty of cards saying military presence can include aircraft · Lit out there, but difficult to find § Equipment interp. for presence · Potential place to zero in on T – see if the aff can defend troops and their equipment § Broad interp. of presence makes it much more difficult on T-substantial § Contextual searching for Afghanistan + drones + military presence, or just drones+military presence, UAVs+military presence · Lots of neg evidence – potential tradeoff evidence causing problems § Look for terms close to/equivalent to military presence § T – substantial – no evidence cut yet, but a large number of drones are in Afghanistan – start contextual searching, use synonyms § Lexis Law Review searches might help, specific in terms of terminology o Adv. Ground § Potential K advantage – virtual war advantage – war becomes depersonalized · Changing conduct of war – mechanized war = less thought to consequences · Search terms – desensitivity, total war, trivialization, mechanization, videogame warfare, displacing of risk · Altered way in which society views war § I-Law · The way in which we use drones is in direct violation of international law – we don’t have confirmation of our targets, need confirmation before airstrikes o Search “The Just War” – lots of lit saying that drones are in violation of that – may be theoretical and not I-Law o Searches about Law of Armed Conflict (may be Law of Armed Combat) – LOAC · CIA usage is also illegal – drones can be used under military authority, but not by the CIA, no oversight · Difficulties about alt. causes/backlash in the U.S., means that more specific evidence and claims in terms of I-Law might be necessary · Modeling cards - Cards about how drones fit into I-Law set a precedent for how other countries will use drones – need reverse causal or modeling cards · Lexis Law Review searches need to happen in terms of I-Law § Counter-terrorism · Collateral damage to innocent people helps Al-Qaeda recruit/gain support o Times Square attempted bombing revenge for a drones attack o One of the main recruiting tools for the Taliban · Good search terms include things about Al-Qaeda recruitment, radicalization · Keep track of F-22s in terms of negative argument – we’d just use F-22 airstrikes instead § Pakistan · Anti-Americanism – Pakistani government is seen as a puppet of the U.S., drone attacks are viewed as the Pakistani government permitting attacks on their own people · Issues with extra-T – no one knows where these drones are based o We do definitely fly drones into Pakistan from Afghanistan · § NATO/EU Cohesion/Coop · A bunch of EU countries don’t like drones/think that they should never be used in the method that the U.S. uses them · Discussions of interoperability/coordination with EU/NATO · Search for articles about potential U.S. disputes with other countries · IMET - Training o Adv. Ground § There doesn’t appear to be any advantage ground – any abuses that occurred have been due to IMET training in the U.S. – no real advantages § o Instead, we are now in Afghanistan – we don’t have a police presence in any other countries § We use police presence to train Afghan police § Germans were better at training troops § Potential aff pulling out our police presence and then Germany would fill in and train the police better? · No evidence saying that they will take over right away § U.S. trains them as faux military – leads to lots of failures o GROUP PLAN OF ACTION – absorb into other aff groups that need help · Iraq Colonialism o Adv. Ground/Internal links § Troops still remain in some presence – lit describes the embassy as a military base · Could be good evidence saying that embassy is military presence § We’re only withdrawing 30,000 – means that we would still have 50,000 remaining in Iraq § Evidence that the deadline will not be a real deadline o Solvency ev. § U.S. presence is completely negative – we kill civilians – we’re the reason for sectarian violence, reason that everyone hates us § Predictive claim that if we withdrew, sectarian violence would end § Internal link turning most of the disads, etc. o Systemic impacts § We’ve killed 1.3 Iraqi civilians alone § We’re the reason behind ethnic conflict – we put our troops there to spur this conflict because we disliked the prior government § Fem approach to the policy in Iraq would help is in the evidence – but might be neg evidence o Spillover § The imperialist way in which we approach Iraq spreads to our exploits in the rest of the world o Orientalism § You fight a war for them to try and make them civil § When you encounter resistance, you see it as radical and violent o Ev. Needed § Need cards saying that confronting the U.S. troop presence is a significant challenge to the idea of U.S. responsibility for nation-building/stability/etc. § Focus our evidence production away from angry bloggers and towards more qualified people – gives the aff more credibility · Gives you the ability to be crazy-leftist if you’d like, but produce the aff in a way that doesn’t necessitate that § Cards about the moral/ethical importance of rejecting colonialism/imperialism – contextual evidence would be useful, people that have written these cards have written about Iraq – our ev should be all about Iraq § Need an angle on redeployment/usage of PMC neg arg § Be ready for the discussion that too fast of a withdrawal is bad/instability as a result of withdrawal – issues with Iran · Substantive responses needed § · Okinawa o Adv. Ground § Japanese relations – the bases in Okinawa really irritate the people that live in Okinawa – makes the U.S. look really bad publically · Need nuanced discussion of the political versus the public opinion – Japan doesn’t want military self-sufficiency · Withdrawal/Japanese rearm balances the burden on the alliance, helps it in terms of long-term sustainability · Rearm should be separate from the discussion of relations/cooperation · More discussion/evidence about how withdrawal will affect specific cooperation and relations § Okinawan secession? No clear impact et, but they are preparing to secede § U.S. cred – shows that the U.S. can withdraw sustainably § Potential alliance collapse good argument? Prevents Chinese lashout, lessens a threat that China perceives · Potential evidence about a peaceful rise of China – a system of balancing in Asia – an alternative to a confrontational rise of China · § Irritates Russia due to the counterbalancing o Inherency § It’ll be okay - · Okinawa K group o Adv. Ground § Feminism route – due to rapes, etc. § Environmental destruction - ethical problem § Well set up to make claims about changing our impact calculus – criticize utilitarianism o Need answers to CPs § Be prepared for jurisdictional counterplans, etc. – alternative strategies for solving for sexual abuse ·
 * __ AFF GROUP REPORTS __**

=Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/21/2010 =

Your evidence: · All of your evidence should be in the template · All of your evidence should have a tag · Should be a tag that will meaningfully describe where the argument will go/ you will be likely to put it · Have a document map open at all times · Make sure your cards are underlined

Clash Drills Anushka’s 2nc: · 2nc didn’t answer 2ac arguments--- was just an extension of 1nc arguments · The 2nc must have answers to 2ac arguments · The structure we follow on off-case positions should mirror 2ac structure. · Do not say extend · For most of the 2nc you are making new arguments on the flow · Do not use the word extend. Reference a 2ac argument “tnw’s not key” (this quickly orients your judge, label is 2-3 words), “that’s our blank evidence” o The argument is that other factors already provide a counter o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Important for you to create the reference that accurately summarized the argument instead of for you to mirror their language · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">2nd argument: “Iranian prolif key” o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">When talking about your opponents evidence it is more useful to talk about it in the form of an argument or a claim o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Difficult to understand what the argument is if you are only explaining what their card is wrong about

· <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Project the perception of calm · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Perceptual evidence is important in debate · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Attempt to work on practicing projecting calm assurance · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Uniqueness argument—strengthened evidence of perception now · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">In a world where turkey perceives a strengthened level of commitment they will be likely to perceive us as allies

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Let’s start a new flow.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Marissa 2ac: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Want a label for your arguments. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Calm. Confidence. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Speaking a little bit into the computer, try to be a little louder · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Transition. Transition. Transition. Organizational disaster when judges don’t know you have switched a page. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Not easy to follow exactly what evidence is being referred to. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Debates occur before your judges have seen any cards. Don’t debate as though the judges have blocks in front of them. Your judge does not have access to your opponent’s blocks. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">The judge will look at the evidence to see who is right about the interpretation of the evidence, but it is very important that the claim is crystal clear · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Judges have more pen time when speeches are broken up by cards. This is what makes it impossible sometimes when people start off on T and the judge gets to a position where the first 3 or 4 arguments made are analytics with no time to pause for evidence. This is such a temptation because in a debate you are writing down all of the parts of their evidence that suck, and then want to read one or the other. You want to disperse these arguments. Don’t begin with a series of analytics followed by a series of cards. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Very good that she extended the case impact. Not done in the most efficient way possible. You can tag this argument as the impact to your case: retaliation. o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">if you only frame the impact to your case as solving the impact to your disad there is a very big problem: there is no external impact.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Maria 2nc: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">You have a tendency to elongate the syllable before you take a breath. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Last part of when you speak with one breath should be the same as everything else · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Label the 2ac arguments more concisely · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Good that you try to construct an even if statement · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">“Even if they use the weapons, nuclear terrorism isn’t likely to happen” but if they use the weapons, then nuclear terrorism has already happened. o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">“even if they acquire they don’t have the motivation” is better and makes more sense · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Explain the impact story by using the impacts in the evidence. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t need the turkey prolif probability evidence · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">They made timeframe arguments, maybe tag the piece of evidence a little differently.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ben’s 2nc: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Breath at punctuation · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Much more difficult to understand you if you don’t speak in complete sentences · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t group arguments that aren’t next to each other.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Tristan 1ar: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Group first 3 arguments: no motivation, can’t deploy, won’t use. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Arg reference in the 1ar needs to be especially short · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Two schools of thought on this: short argument reference with groups or use the technique of embedded clash. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Embedded clash when it works, is great, but when it doesn’t work it’s horrible. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">We need a quick grouping of the case arguments, in which we use a form of embedded clash in responding to both of their arguments · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Important to extend that prolif has a long timeframe because maria didn’t really answer it

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Keshav’s 1ar · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Less time on case, more time on the disad · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Arguments you can cut from the case debate: the second argument about times square bombing, make a probability argument instead.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Michelle 1ar: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">The impact work wasn’t warranted. Use the extra time to explain more

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Emily 1ar: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t give an underview · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Spend more time on the link debate

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Kerijiwal 1ar: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Start off slower · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Impact calc is good but long

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">BBQ’s 2nr: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t concede case, do impact calculus that minimizes the impact debate · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">You don’t need to go to the case flow at all if you do choose to not go for case · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t need to label your impact calculus—you can kind of just do it · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Put the impact calculus at the top · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Explain the warrants in your evidence more.

When you are cutting cards: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Use the template · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">If the template doesn’t work, talk to Alex Gulakov · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Keep your document map or navigation pane open · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Tagging as you go is important, have at the very least a heading that is common to an entire section · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Hard to know what you have, if you are not quickly about to figure out the sets of arguments you have been working on · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Even harder when compiling/working in a group · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">If not clear to you what purpose a card would serve, still important to keep that card around and talk to the lab leaders about them. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Put your name at the end of the cite of each card you cut. Initials are fine. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Cards need to be specific to a region in order to be useful o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Especially true for your internal link cards

= Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/22/2010 = Austin’s aff: · Organization of the 2ac makes it difficult to use portions of the 1ac later in the debate · Tags are in a coherent story · Separate the things you’re going to use for king disads · When affirmatives do this you should know they are going to find tricky ways to get rid of your impacts Discourse: · Shapiro card · Inst. Practice—meaning/values aff · Implicit/unaddressed discourses o “Islamic threat” o Humanitarian intervention o Sectarian violence o Democracy · What can be said, what has meaning is not natural or inevitable o Us military o Political officials/ elites o Think tanks o Media-mainstream journalism · Knowledge/power o One of Foucault’s most well known taglines is that the relationship between knowledge and power is co-productive o Producing power relationships has to do with knowledge and information · Discourse is not only linguistic o Talbot—not only talking about the linguistic

2ac Redeployment PMCs Politics

Afghanistan Drones Aff: · How solve for Pakistan? · Work around how we think of people as targets · What impact to counterinsurgency adv? o Adv is missing a terminal impact sort of  o Have an impact about Pakistan but not about Afghanistan · Is the aff about the presence of drones? o About the target of killing and the methodology of drones · In using the court, if we write the ruling to be topical, we can have an ilaw adv · Write the ruling to effect a change in presence · Have some say to say that presence of the drones is their use on combat, which is very counterintuitive · Any use of drones is bad · Court ruling doesn’t have to be on a treaty, but if the us stops its use of drones it still wouldn’t be in compliance with international law on target killings · Another set of research that needs to get done o Whether or not to use the court and if so how o Ilaw stuff about targeted killings and armed conflict o Afghanistan specific impacts

Marissa’s Aff: · Explain what security you are talking about · We should be evaluating security differently, whos concerns about security · Parameters of security aren’t clear · Make the alternative type of security clear in your tags · Need a spillover card and need a card that says this one instance is enough o Need to prioritize solving violence against women o There are some really good cards out there on what particular women’s rights need to be prioritized o And that when we say things like that politically we need to tackle an issue first that those claims are used to delay addressing gender violence o These cards talk about how and where we should prioritize even if they don’t solve all of patriarchy · Deemphasize pimps in the tags

=Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/23/2010=

**__Iraq Colonialism__**

 * · 1AC
 * o 1AC has been rearranged – changes we talked about
 * o Current work on the 1AC – updating the cards from 2004 so that they’re newer
 * · Progress has been made for 2AC answers/blocks
 * · Aff files is completely compiled in terms of current cards
 * · To be done
 * o Some progress on Kurds (articles found, but not cut)
 * o Withdrawal popular/unpop being cut
 * o Look into K of politics DA
 * o Get deeper on args – be prepared to have large debates on issues by having more cards
 * o K’s of disads like deterrence/appeasement/climate or energy bill (EJ angle)
 * o Answers to the out-left à evidence about this being a good starting point, defense of our methodology (including responses to capitalism/economic focus)

**__Drones__**

 * · Supreme Court option
 * o We could ban UCAV’s (the combat drones) – it wouldn’t have the government tell them how to use the drones, but it would ban drones, not courts giving orders
 * o Potential I-Law advantage – trouble finding impacts
 * · T-Substantial
 * o Substantial means important/having substance cards – UCAVs are key and vital parts of the military presence
 * o Figure out how many of the drones are combat drones
 * · Potential Terrorism Advantage
 * o Arguments about the drones being very important à driving Taliban recruitment
 * o Need COIN will succeed arguments – we’ll need some strategy that will succeed
 * o Also, drones not key to strategy
 * · Other Work
 * o How do we answer drones will attack from elsewhere/flown from Pakistan?
 * § Airforce presence is where they use the equipment – could reduce the presence by changing the fact that they’re in Afghanistan flying around
 * § Durable fiat?
 * o Drone withdrawal à more airstrikes or relaxed rules of engagement
 * § Ruling on certain grounds – avoids changing to airstrikes – ruling on certain aspects of I-Law
 * o How does START interact with UCAVs? Other laws? On Wikipedia under references
 * o Morality arguments about Just War?
 * § May be okay if it’s in wartime
 * § Perhaps an advantage story about confusion
 * o Afghan stability advantage – worked out
 * § Hearts and Minds cards found
 * o Preemptive Strikes Advantage – didn’t work out
 * o Drone usage modeling card/claim
 * § U.S. excuses other people’s conduct cards should be cut, or arguments about how other countries model U.S. military law/equipment usage
 * o

=<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/26/2010 =

Negs: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Israeli Rels DA (IQ/Turkey) · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Reverse spending · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Biopower? ·

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Case negs: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Don’t assume the aff won’t get better · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">If you find a hole of an aff, you should assume that it will be filled and look for cards that answer that · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Finding problems: o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Is this a problem they can fix? o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">How? o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">If I were affirmative, how would I fix this problem? o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Cut cards that deal with the likely fix

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Iraq: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Timetable (obey sofa) · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Colonialism · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Court-ilaw · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">w-d

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">south korea: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">military exercises · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">prostitution · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">naval exercises

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">afghanistan · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">counterterrorism (nation building bad) o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">3 nation building bad affs: prevent the surge, drones, and a counter narcotics aff

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">China offshore balancing · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Us withdraws from sk and japan

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Japan: · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Relations/balance · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Gender/patriarchy/environment · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Alliance/heg · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Aegis (anti missile defense system)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Turkey- tnws

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Pmcs aff

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Kuwait aff

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Objectivism aff

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Generics: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Compensation Das · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Lasers o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Plan frees up a lot of money in the military budget, which means that the military spends the money on lasers to compensate for contracts that weren’t finished because of the withdrawal. This is a destabilizing weapons system. · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Conventional prompt global strike (cgps) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">CMR · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Withdrawing the troops makes the military angry—civil military relations good for military readiness, demo modeling) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Gates DA · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Withdrawing makes Gates angry because he is committed to foreign presence  · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Obama makes concessions to Gates in order to keep good relations—RRWs sparks an arms race  · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">RRW- debate about whether or not its modernizing or maintaining our arsenal—the people who write impact cards do so on the premise that it will be perceived as modernization

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Allied Prolif CP <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Condition cp against each country except Kuwait <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Rearm da—one for every country except Kuwait.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Politics · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Start DA · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Energy bill · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Midterms—tax, filibusters bad, environment (cap and trade) · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Immigration reform · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Skfta · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Peace process

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Gender K · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">IR methods and values are patriarchal

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Heg · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Withdrawing undermines US primacy in the world · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Power vacuums · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Forward deployment

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Japanese ad SK politics · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Skfta passing in korea now · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Korean politics DA · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Economic reform

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Pmcs/redeployment · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Pms fill in and they violate human rights · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Redeployment o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Pakistan o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Afghanistan o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Iran o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Guam

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Security K · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Cut link arguments to a wide variety of adv areas · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Not enough work on terror

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Politics DA for Afghanistan, turkey, Iraq · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Afghanistan: karzai credibility—if he perceives he doesn’t have US support he will engage the Taliban or they will take over · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Nato cred key to fair elections in afghan · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Turkey: about Turkish elections that will be happening in july of next year o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">EU recession · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Iraq: elections held in Iraq in march and not a clear winner o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">What has to happen is that the minority parties have ot join a coalition with the majority parties o <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">This guy won’t get support without withdrawal of troops, after he will which is bad.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Israeli relations DA
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Austin **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Security Blocks and Terror K
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Maria **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Capitalism/IPE K · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Identity politics bad · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Military presence is one aspect of us control but not the most important · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Troop withdrawal a mechanism for consolidating us dominance and not challenging it
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Maria (prioritize this one) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Case negs:

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Afghanistan · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">CT good · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Nationbuilding bad · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Counternarcotics
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Tristan **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Emily **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Fernando **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Michelle **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Keshev **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Drones
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Noelle **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Iraq Colonialism
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Marissa **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Iraq Timetable
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Avi **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Steven **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Clara **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ben **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">SK Policy · <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Exercises and balancing
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Corey **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Thomas **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Prostitution
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">BBQ **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Japan K
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Rodrigo **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Benson **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Japan Policy
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Anushka **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Pavan **

=**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/27/2010 **=

Japan Policy Aff

 * · No Plan Texts
 * o SS, MO,
 * · Advantage – Relations Arg
 * o 2006 bilateral agreement to move the base on Okinawa
 * o Protests hurt the alliance
 * o Lots of 1AC ev flows neg – says that the U.S. needs another base in Japan in order to maintain the alliance
 * o Japanese Prolif impact scenario
 * o Chinese Aggression scenario
 * o BQ has impacts with Russia, Middle East Terrorism
 * o Environment advantage
 * · Neg Response
 * o Case Args
 * § Removal hurts alliance – relocation better
 * § Alliance strong if we relocate
 * § Find evidence saying that we can find a place to relocate
 * § Public unpop. Limited
 * § Public doesn’t matter that much
 * § Relocation solves for public
 * § Negotiated Settlement in the alliance takes out advantage
 * § Successful Relocation solves Kan Politics
 * § Alliance key to Japanese Economy/Relations key to Japanese Economy
 * § Bases key to perception of U.S. commitment
 * · /Deterrent effect/Extended Deterrence/Umbrella/Tripwire
 * · Burden Sharing
 * § Residual Pressure angers the Public
 * § Alliance Resilient
 * § Japan-U.S. coop without alliance
 * o Off Case
 * § Relocation CP
 * § Change the size of the base CP
 * § Redeployment DA - Guam
 * § Compensation DA
 * § Negotiated Settlement CP
 * § Short Term politics da (and go for long term squo solves)
 * § T – Reduce vs. a plan that only targets Okinawa/T - In
 * · Advantage – Politics
 * o Kan – financial reform key to promote Japanese growth – he has to keep his promise to move the Okinawan base to maintain his ability to push through his agenda

=<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/28/2010 =

Iraq: Advantages—overstretch (econ, hard power), soft power (democracy, terrorism, HR), systemic death- mil presence bad, iran relations (terrorism, instability, rivalries?) Plans—reaffirm the SOFA (explicitly or implicitly) and also withdraw PMCs

Generics/ 1nc Compensation? Iraq politics Hegemony DA—strongly dependant on internal link work Redeployment DA—takes out overstretch and external impact (Afghanistan?) PMCs (except versus plan) Security k (or terror talk—remember not to read both security and the heg dA)—aff inclusive T- “they are the sq”—reduce military presence &T substantial No change from baseline- SOFA is the baseline No future changes/reduction must be immediate Fx

Airpower PIC? (deters Iran, supports Iraqi security forces)

Need military spending sustainable

Overstretch—current timetable bad, transition will be slow, mil spending unsustainable, cut bloated programs CP to solve overstretch via…recruitment/retention/etc

Heg disad- US premature withdrawal is perceived as forgetting about Iraq. Reputation ruined and case defense reputation ow capabilities, Iranian control of oil supply In order to read an oil disad, we have to be destroying these affs on stability, otherwise we are reading more impacts for their advantage

Soft power: Case turns access this impact—US perceived poorly if Iraq falls apart Iraq not the key issue- other perpetual fx Fair number of alt causes (HR violations- gitmo, climate treaty, abm withdrawal/ nmd development, drones) Current reductions insufficient Damage is already done No spillover Adv cp—some other item that makes the US look good Politics- reopening the debate crushes capital Generals/s military think they are going to control the timeline—but the plan slaps down the military/military establishment CMR

Oil secure now, SOFA troop level insufficient Oil revenues are really important for the Iraqi government The Iraqi government is very important for stability Hard to have a stable government without an economy

w/d jacks access( link turn stability), oil sec key to impact, direct challenge from Iran, oil revenues key to Iraqi econ key to stability.

Maliki (incumbent) vs Allawi (Shia) 163= majority 89 vs 91 Sadrist Kurds Parliament has been meeting only to delay deciding who will be the next leader of Iraq Two politicians and neither one willing to cede control to the other one They refuse to share power and form a government together They have to convince either the Sadrists or the Kurds

Sadrists= hate US military Kurds= love US military

Two other parties that are needed to sway the government one way or the other

Maliki would get credit for the plan Story of the DA is that Maliki will lose now; Sadrists hate the US military so they will join his party if the US leaves because he will get credit for the plan

The problem with finding Maliki bad scenarios is that he is the incumbent If Maliki joins the Sadrists, they have been backed by the northern alliance (which belongs to Iran) and this will swing Iraq away from the US and toward Iran

Maybe the Sadrists will get to appoint the prime minister and it won’t be him Could be a person the US has deemed as a terrorist

He didn’t need the Sadrist backing before= reason for impact uniqueness

K Victim argument in regards to prostitution Not the gender category of femininity but that to be a woman is to be vulnerable They probably reentrench gender binaries and don’t solve anything Representation of rape is a good essentialism argument

Combo of redeployment, some other case args, politics is good for k affs Cut answers to security k cards about security communities to defend the alliance

Implicit commitment to us presence = criminalization People are exploiting these women and they must be stopped

=Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/30/2010= LAB NOTES

Okinawa vs. Politics

 * · 2AC:
 * o Reading both uniqueness answers and uniqueness overwhelms the link is probably not strategic
 * o Charles has a great card about how structural effects are far more important than policies – very high truth value and very difficult for the neg to answer
 * · 2NC
 * o An overview with impact calc would be nice – especially useful here because there were not tons of places for impact analysis on the line by line
 * o Careful with certain cards – the politics disad may not be able to be run in the other direction
 * o Need answers to “too soon to call” and “no effect on the midterms”
 * o Neg is probably on the right side of the uniqueness
 * · 1AR
 * o Try and sneak new args in – use the takeout discussion to transition to a discussion of impact calculus that responds to the 2NC
 * o If evidence isn’t that old, then it still probably refers to the current election – instead of making a timeframe distinction, point out that opposition is not a claim of something being an issue that will swing an election – there’s no causal claim
 * o Make an arg that they don’t have a single card saying that anyone will change their vote because of this issue – a great true arg for the aff to focus the debate down on – neg is never going to have a card that will really say that a single issue like this will swing the election
 * o Make a degree of internal-link distinction – even if the election is affected, it probably doesn’t trigger an impact if it’s just a few seats

DEMO DEBATE

 * · Aff
 * o The place where the neg is most extreme is the place where you can try and win that the neg links to itself
 * · Neg
 * o Best link arg is about the flashpoint argument about the aff’s framing of the middle east – great and specific card about how we discuss security politics in certain ways and how that affects the outcome – we view the middle east as irrational and dangerous – both indicts the aff’s impact claim and is a direct tie to the speech act of the 1AC – is very fundamental to the aff’s framing
 * § The aff also has zero evidence defending that concept regarding middle east security – also is a very specific claim about reps and prevents the discourse claims from being generic
 * o Get out of jail free – the aff is part of a narrative about interventions like this being useful
 * · General
 * o Weaver card – metapolitics means beyond politics – weaver talks about how critics of security think that if we can just resolve security on a metapolitical level, all of the problems of the 1AC are resolved, but that’s not how it works
 * § Charles claimed it was neg ev – proves that the affirmative also can’t change the political
 * § Also responded with the arg that security approaches implicit affirm the concept that we can avoid insecurity and reach total security – security becomes the metapolitical stance or problem, and becomes the only question – the alternative is a way of accepting insecurity
 * · Aff response is that the neg stance is one that gives up on all policies because the root cause cannot be solved – good policies are rejected in favor of the utopian ideals of the alternative
 * o Serial Policy Failure arg made by the neg
 * § Similar response as Charles’ about security – the fact that policy fails and cannot literally incorporate everything/solve all of the issues proves that the aff’s claim about security is not totalizing, but is rather limited
 * o Impact discussion
 * § Conventional impact calculus just allows the neg to make their arguments about leveraging of security regarding existential threats
 * · Aff counter: the neg’s attempt to make their impact relevant in terms of magnitude and discussion of a global impact proves that the negative is far more concerned about population security etc. – becomes an excuse to stay in iraq
 * § Neg arg – the aff and the neg start from different places – the affirmative always ends up discussing an irrational and dangerous middle east – inevitably a type of orientalist discussion of security – only the affirmative’s approach to insecurity/conflict is one that necessitates the distinction/separation/discipline of certain populations
 * o The value to life claim is an argument about how certain people’s lives are valued by OTHERS at zero, which results in their extermination
 * o Aff arg – the neg’s criticism of the 1AC’s framing of the Middle East, while criticizing the promotion of the rational west over the irrational middle east, is something that is implicitly rationalist – it indicts the aff’s framing as irrational and not representative of the ‘truth’ of the middle east as not dangerous or irrational – accused the negative of being Platonist
 * § The neg sees the outcome of the affirmative as entirely predictable based on the way in which the affirmative is securitizing – proves that the alternative does not truly change the valuation of the ‘rational’ west over the ‘irrational’ middle east
 * o The neg arg isn’t that the world is PURELY discourse, but rather that we need to focus on discourse because we cannot get outside of discourse – we should reexamine and challenge the ways in which we currently constitute the world in order to challenge the aff’s claims of inevitability and objectivity with regards to things like the irrational middle east
 * § The alternative is a way of integrating those who are currently marginalized and excluded and including their perspectives here

Case Negs

 * · AEGIS Aff
 * o Work has been done on all of the advantages
 * o Remove deployment, but not development – solves most of the aff

=Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/31/2010=

2ac Intrinsicness
 * · Tests germaneness
 * · Logical decision maker
 * o Like in international fiat—there is no corresponding actor in the real world who can decide whether the US or China does the plan
 * · Same-actor intrinsicness
 * · Opportunity cost
 * · Permuting potions of squo

2nc Defenses of intrinsicness:
 * · No logical limitation—same action could offset any impact
 * · Infinite regression
 * · Link proves that a disad is intrinsic
 * o A logical policy maker would still be under the constraints of political capital so it wouldn’t make sense to vote for both
 * · Hurts neg flex—core strategies require compensation, tradeoff, etc
 * · Real world policymaking advocacy models req access constraints
 * · Not evaluating the constraints of apolitical institution like the government makes our understanding of the way the institution works flawed

Reponse to 2ac: Advantage cp tests intrinsicness of aff adv-- its reciprocal
 * · Reciprocity is a poor standard—debate built on different rules not the same
 * · Not reciprocal-- Allows for aff conditionality
 * · The aff gets short analytical arguments to take out a whole DA and we get to research difficult counterplans
 * · Unequal advocacy burden
 * · Aff can generate new offense by reading addons when the neg tests the germaneness of the aff—the neg has no new way to generate offense

Solvency turns are the most intrinsic arguments because they are literal effects of the plan Things like the politics disad which has one actor choose between two policies that are not necessarily conflicting is not intrinsic

“Forced choice” Don’t have to choose between the politics DA and withdrawing from Iraq

Intrinsicness tests the link-- DA intrinsicness arguments should always be about the link level and not the impact level

= Ramakrishnan-Turner 8/5/2010 =

Arguments that were problem areas Blocks that need to be revised

Okinawa K Aff: · Redeployment esp turns case o Genocide impact only (turns case) · K links—exploit rapes · Essentialism · Victimization · SK CP (japan politics/ econ) · Gender-mainstream cp   · Compensation f22s · Guam legal representation solves · Intrinsicness · Unq problems- guam base · Spillover · SK redeployment links · Resolving relocation issue · Uniqueness problems · Expansive struggle/intersectional—common mobilization · Guam 700 small · Seam ronni Alexander · K links · Gender o Trgt us military—not Okinawa · Research UN gender main · “add women and stir”—gender generic · Treats US reformer/model not problem · All things that go into producing a category of women with restricted criteria ends up meaning that identity politics ends up producing you as a subject whose characteristics are now the destructive ones that you’re trying to combat. o Biological essentialism claim—biological gets confused with gender, changes the relationships of gender o If we make the assertion that gender categories are assumed across cultures the same way0—we make the assumption that there is a feminine gender role that must be experienced the same in all societies and cultures o Need to find evidence on “strategic essentialism” § Using this set of cat strategically and we understand not perma basis for politics but it’s the only thing that can be understood in this set of relationships until we understand that it can be broken down · Victim o Agents require our support o Empathy · Exploit o Systematic bc pce to part o Neg not acknowledge

Drones Aff: · Court stripping · T-presence cant be weapons system · T-presence must be a physical experience, in is within · T-reduce must be pulled out, in is within · T-effects- court action not enforceable o Remember to answer solvency cross ap   · A2 no spillover o Courts key o Afghanistan precedent will spillover (no combat drones can meet that standard) · Courts: o A2 congress cp   o Including courts key to ilaw adv o Precedent key to spillover o Courts don’t link to politics—get ilaw specific cards § Courts forcing us to uphold treaty obligations might have more of an impact in congress o A2 court stripping- lose legitimately with congress and public, legit impact o A2 ct pltx o A2 9-0 cp   o Theory blocks or ground spec bad—test case o Cite but don’t rule cp   o Offense vs citing o Targeted killing/ Geneva specific impacts for ilaw

Iraq colonialism: · Conditions cp   · Have IQ kick us out · Redeploy- pak, afghan, ME   · Pmcs · Abl · Soft power bad · ME soft power/hard power bad · Gender k- anticolonialism · K of anti-Semitism · Japan cp/iq pol · Referendum in IQ/ iq demo · T non combat · Israeli comp bunker busters · Claim victory—spin n/u o Role of judge/advocacy matters · Reverse operation · spillover · Start pol · Heg bad da   · Conditions: o Say no-us too powerful o Government represents US interests not Iraq o Conditions colonial § Selecting ethnic/sectarian groups · IQ   o Find perm- us respect wishes o Ifiat o Fiat is colonialist o Position yourself/ K more realistically

= Ramakrishnan-Turner 8/7/2010  = Security · Institutional practices o Reaffirm and exchange meaning and value · Practice—choice/ frame particular way to approach, understand, represents, constitute. · Meaning not separate from value · K of mainstream · Positivist orientation o Quantitative o Separate fact-value o Positive empirically verifiable—objective fact o Social sciences pursuing a natural scientific method § Governed by Law-like behavior § Emphasis on causation · Discovering discrete causes that we can then use to develop predictions · They transcend observer from the observed o Subject and objects o Subject is social and objects are natural · Critics accuse this of producing a mechanistic understanding of how the world works o Intl relations becomes a little bit like weather forecasting · Historically contingent · Epistemology/ontology strongly connected not neutral o Being what the world is   · IR practices produce/constitute a particular form of life/political operation · Prior/reps/discourse o Questions assumed answered by the aff must be re-opened o Militarized o Cost/benefit/utility o Identity vs difference o Sovereignty § Subject · Autonomous · Rational · Self ossessed § Nation-state · Connected to national ideal · Value · To be American is to have o Democracy o Freedom o Be safe or powerful o Prosperous—capitalist o Individualistic o Judeo-Christian · Security politics o Tend to treat difference/otherness as threatening o Depoliticizing o Removed from political domain o Hierarchical- rank/ordering T   · How to debate affs that are going to reduce troops by 2011 <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o We want affs to be something that reduces troops before 2011 <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o Standards: <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Lose the squo <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Limits—1000s of deadlines explodes the topic and its unpredictable <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Sofa not a functional difference <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Probabilistic, commits to this reduction that will happen in the future/ effects <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · Plan in and of itself doesn’t reduce troops—the plan commits to reducing troops in 2011 <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · we loose time sensitive links <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o Aff: <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § In squo we won’t withdraw by 2011 <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § SOFA deadlines are predictable because there are only so many <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · Functional limit on the topic if they defend sofa deadlines <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Signal solves time sensitive link—not future fiat because they do an immediate action <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Neg ground should be continues presence core debate is not withdrawal now vs later-- lit supports aff interp <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> § Withdrawal inevitable—no L DA—heg, redeployment, prolif, compensation, case turns—all of these predicated off of whether or not we withdraw not when we withdraw · Define military presence as access agreements <span style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o One of those being the SOFA