No Link: Nukes Will Likely Not Be Redeployed 3
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF
TNWs 2AC Blocks
Contents TNWs 2AC Blocks ...... 1 ***CASE 2AC*** ...... 2 TNW redeployment 2AC Block ...... 2 No Link: Nukes will likely not be redeployed ...... 3 Answer to the Meier 09 Link extn: ...... 4 Turkey TNW Shift—No Impact ...... 5 No Impact: War will not Occur between the US and Russia (ONLY USE IF NOT RUNNING ADV 3: BRINK) ...... 6 No impact: NATO will not increase exercises ...... 7 Euro-Deterrence—No Impact ...... 9 AT: OIL Args ...... 10 ***DA Blocks*** ...... 12 A2 Obama bad DA ...... 12 AT: Obama Good ...... 16 AT CMR DA ...... 19 AT Reverse Spending DA ...... 20 ***AT FEM IR K*** ...... 21 ***Topicality Blocks*** ...... 25 AT: USFG ...... 25 AT: Substantially ...... 26 AT T- Reduce =/= Eliminate ...... 27 AT Military Presence Topicality ...... 28 AT: T Presence?? ...... 30 ***NEGATIVE*** ...... 32 Topicality- USFG ...... 32 Topicality- In ...... 33 T-Substantially = 85% ...... 34 T- Presence = Military Bases ...... 36
1 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF
2 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF ***CASE 2AC*** TNW redeployment 2AC Block
No Link: Analytical to Empirically proven link: The negative says that the link is empirically proven because in the past, withdrawal caused the re-arrangement of TNWs within Turkey. Our plan states, however, that all TNWs will be removed from the country of Turkey. The plan guarantees withdrawal from Turkey.
3 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF No Link: Nukes will likely not be redeployed
TNWs will be taken back to the U.S. where they can be disassembled Dr. Nick Ritchie is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. “STEPPING DOWN THE NUCLEAR LADDER: OPTIONS FOR TRIDENT ON A PATH TO ZERO” Pg. 13 May 2009
The US has maintained several thousand nuclear weapons in various states of readiness for many years.55 Its nuclear stockpile is divided into operational, active reserve and inactive reserve categories. Warheads in the active reserve are “maintained in a ready-for-use configuration with tritium and other limited life components installed. They incorporate the latest warhead modifications” and can augment operationally deployed nuclear forces over a period of weeks, months and years if required. Warheads in the inactive reserve “do not have limited life components installed, and may not have the latest warhead modifications.” They serve as a source of replacements for warheads used in quality assurance and reliability testing and as a hedge against of the discovery of a problem with a large number of active warheads.56 The stockpile of assembled active and inactive nuclear warheads is stored at a number of facilities and includes a huge stockpile of W76 Trident missile warheads stored at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic in Georgia and the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific in Maine.57 The US is estimated to have 3,200 W76 warheads of which approximately 1,200 are counted as part of the operationally deployed nuclear arsenal, leaving 2,000 in the active stockpile.58 The inactive stockpile also includes the key component parts of disassembled nuclear warheads, including plutonium ‘pits’ (the ‘primary stage’ for a thermonuclear weapon that generates the initial nuclear fission explosion), ‘canned subassemblies’ (the ‘secondary stage’ containing highly enriched uranium that generates a nuclear fusion explosion), tritium reservoirs, and other key components.59 The Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, reportedly stores more than 1,900 warheads that are either part of the inactive reserve stockpile or awaiting shipment to the US nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly Pantex Plant in Texas for dismantlement.60 When nuclear weapons are dissembled at the Pantex Plant, either for retirement or quality assurance testing, the components parts are returned to their point of origin. Plutonium pits are returned to the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico, highly-enriched uranium components and secondaries are transferred to the Y-12 Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee for further processing and storage, tritium reservoirs are sent to the Savannah River Site (SRS) tritium facility in South Carolina, and other non-nuclear components to the Kansas City Plant. A reserve of many thousands of plutonium pits is stored in protected concrete ‘igloo’ bunkers at the Pantex Plant.61 This demonstrates that it is possible to store and manage assembled active and inactive Trident warheads or the key components of disassembled Trident warheads for long periods of time with processes in place for re-assembly and redeployment as envisaged in the ‘emergency alert’ option above.
4 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Answer to the Meier 09 Link extn:
The neg takes the Meier 09 link out of context. No where in the card does Meier claim that Nukes will be relocated, on the Contrary it contests the Miller and Robertson in 10 card. NATO does not oppose the removal of TNWs.
Meier, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy Researcher, and Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) Arms Control and Disarmament Researcher, December 2009 [Oliver, "German Nuclear Stance Stirs Debate," http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_12/GermanNuclearStance, da: 7/15]
The senior Foreign Office source confirmed that the issue of withdrawal will be discussed in the context of the ongoing NATO discussion about a new Strategic Concept and “would be on the arms control agenda as soon as possible.” Schockenhoff emphasized that “a consensus within NATO on this question is a precondition for any changes,” but said that he “expects positive reactions by NATO allies to this project because disarmament and arms control play an important role in the alliance.” Hoff emphasized that “it will be particularly important that talks with our allies in NATO about a withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany will be conducted on the basis of rational criteria and free of Cold War reflexes.”
According to several sources, a presentation by German representatives of Berlin’s new position in the NATO Council did not trigger a direct reaction by allies. Yet, German representatives were apparently approached on a bilateral basis by several NATO allies who were seeking clarification of Berlin’s position on nuclear sharing. The U.S. official said the new German government’s initiative to advocate a removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany has indeed prompted “a lively debate within NATO.” That debate so far has been limited to “informal discussions and corridor chatter” rather than formal consideration of the proposal, he said, adding that the discussions “are certainly going to be interesting.”
No Link: Analytical to US Russian 1st strikes by Sokov 09: The Sokov 09 card has been bastardized to the point where the card is being interpreted wrong to the point of abuse. Refer to the card, the area that they do not read specifies that U.S./Russian relations will only decrease if TNWs are moved to Russian borders. Their claim that any movement of TNWs will cause dispute is deliberately misleading.
5 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Turkey TNW Shift—No Impact
Redeployment wouldn’t lead to crisis escalation—its covert Sokov, Center for Nonproliferation Studies Senior Research Associate, 7/17/2009 [Nikolai, “Tactical (Substrategic) Nuclear Weapons,” http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/090717_german_leadership/german_leadership_6_issue_4.pdf, da: 7/15]
The issue of escalation, meanwhile, is more complicated than those who urge the retention of TNW in NATO would admit. First of all, any moves to return the weapons to Europe need not be acknowledged as long as dual-capable aircraft remain in Europe deployed with conventional weapons, and no verification regime exists. Deciding whether or not to announce any redeployment could be left to NATO’s discretion. Indeed, the option to announce a redeployment could give NATO commanders a new and flexible military tool—one of greater utility than the weapons provide under the current scenario. This possibility would also serve to provide an inducement to Russia to construct an appropriate verification regime.
6 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF No Impact: War will not Occur between the US and Russia (ONLY USE IF NOT RUNNING ADV 3: BRINK)
War between Russia and the United States is highly unlikely. The cold war risk is superceded by diplomacy. Spy swap proves BBC Worldwide Monitoring July 9, 2010. “Russian-US spy swap points to new level of relations between countries – MPs” . The former director of the Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) and now the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Veterans Affairs, Nikolay Kovalev, has said that he considers the efforts of Russia and the USA aimed at preventing repercussions from the so-called spy scandal to be absolutely right, a later Interfax report said. "In essence, the countries acted in a civilized way, without losing face, which will help the improvement of relations between the two countries," Kovalev told Interfax. He went on to say that Russia "demonstrated that it does not leave its citizens in trouble, and it is important to underline this, because in the past our state often forgot about its citizens who had got into a difficult situation abroad". Kovalev added that the scandal would soon be forgotten. "I am sure about this, and, as the majority of pundits, including me, have said before, it will not affect Russian-US relations in any way," he said. "It was a policy of common sense and it is good that we have finally started to pursue it. There have always been intelligence services and there will be, and both countries have demonstrated an understanding of this in the current situation," he said. "The agreement reached is evidence that the level of relations between the USA and Russia has significantly improved after [Barack] Obama came to power," he said. Deputy Head of the State Duma Security Committee Mikhail Grishankov has also said that the spy swap testifies to a new level of Russian-American relations. "Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev has performed his duty of defending Russian citizens. Everything possible was done for them to return home, and the decision was taken quickly by both Russia and the USA," Grishankov told Interfax on 9 July. "What happened shows that today relations between Russia and the USA are at a new level and it is a confirmation of the fact that the Cold War has been left behind. This stage in the relations between our countries has been overcome and is in the past," Grishankov said.
7 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF No impact: NATO will not increase exercises
TNW withdrawal would not cause NATO to ramp up military exercises or change war plans Meier, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy Researcher, and Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) Arms Control and Disarmament Researcher, 2/15/2010 [Oliver, "Don’t Mention the Cold War: Lord Robertson’s Basil Fawlty Moment," http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/fawltymoment, 2/28] It is hoped that such talks, when they occur, contain more enlightened thinking than in this briefing, which harks back to the Cold War simplicity of Russia as NATO's enemy. For example, the authors’ suggest that if US tactical nuclear weapons are withdrawn, NATO would need to "compensate" with increased war plans and exercises , and more darkly, that it could lead to the de-coupling of US forces from Europe. But at a time when NATO forces, both European and American, are fighting a war side-by-side in Afghanistan, the idea that NATO nuclear forces are an essential bond between Europe and America is anachronistic and indeed dangerous because it distracts the Alliance from focusing on the real issues.
8 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Euro-Deterrence—No Link
No Euro-deterrence fill-in—implementation dooms Gompert, RAND Vice President Emeritus, and Samaan, RAND Visiting Scholar, Winter 2009 [David, Jean-Loup, "French Nuclear Weapons, Euro-Deterrence and NATO," Contemporary Securit Policy, 30.3]
Even for France, Euro-deterrence gets more vexing the more seriously one con- templates its implementation. While the Europeanization of the French independent deterrent could help address the question of relevance, it would open up new ques- tions of independence – not from Washington but from Berlin, London, Rome and Brussels. Many French would want to know whether the decision to use nuclear weapons remained a purely national prerogative, with the French President as the sole decision-maker. If the answer is yes, how confident could France’s neighbours be? If the answer is no, implying collective decision-making, how credible could the threat of retaliation be? In the end, France would almost certainly reserve the sovereign decision to use or to decline to use its nuclear weapons, just as the United States has always done when extending deterrence to allies. But the United States has entered into arrangements to give allies confidence in its deterrent, including NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and dual-key systems. Would France offer to create an EU equivalent of the NPG? Would it share control of or access to weapons? With its smaller deterrent force, would France be as ready to take on an enemy nuclear power as the United States would? If not, why would a European ally place greater trust in French extended deterrence than in American extended deterrence? Finally, unless one or more of the European Union’s wealthy members, such as Germany, were prepared to help shoulder the cost of French nuclear forces – highly unlikely, assuming France retains sovereign control – the burdens of afford- ability and sustainability would be no lighter than now. It hardly seems likely that French taxpayers would be more generous in funding nuclear capabilities because deterrence was extended to allies. In sum, with the possible exception of non-binding declaratory policy implying French nuclear retaliation for attacks on neighbouring soil, conditions do not seem ripe for an independent Euro-deterrent. Paris can say that this is just an idea for the distant future, but others will evaluate and react to it in the current context.
No French fill-in—France has no incentive to change nuclear policy Gompert, RAND Vice President Emeritus, and Samaan, RAND Visiting Scholar, Winter 2009 [David, Jean-Loup, "French Nuclear Weapons, Euro-Deterrence and NATO," Contemporary Securit Policy, 30.3]
At present, there is no detectable enthusiasm in French military or policy circles for changing nuclear policy: no decisions loom, and change could be politically risky at home and abroad. Moreover, the defence establishment will be preoccupied with new directions in conventional forces, as outlined by the White Paper (which devoted only three of 350 pages to nuclear forces). Although the government will be vigilant for ways to reduce its bulging fiscal deficit, there is little room for near-term savings in nuclear capabilities. If no new funding commitments are to be made nor savings to be found in nuclear forces, what would impel Sarkozy to change policy?
9 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Euro-Deterrence—No Impact
French fill-in would lead to an effective Europe-based NATO Gompert, RAND Vice President Emeritus, and Samaan, RAND Visiting Scholar, Winter 2009 [David, Jean-Loup, "French Nuclear Weapons, Euro-Deterrence and NATO," Contemporary Securit Policy, 30.3]
In effect, this would amount to a Franco – British Euro-deterrence organized in NATO and executed under NATO, rather than a separate European Union arrange- ment (which, as noted, the United Kingdom, among others, would likely to oppose). While the circumstances in which France and the United Kingdom would elect to use nuclear weapons and the United States are not hard to imagine, the logic should satisfy the French desire that ‘Europe’ be able to act autonomously, albeit without creating an independent deterrent that could erode European faith in – as well as enemy fear of – American extended deterrence. To be clear, this approach would not follow the model of ESDP, which exists outside of NATO. Rather, it would create the possibility of European strategic cooperation and action within NATO. Along with it, the United States and United Kingdom could offer France trilateral technical cooperation on strategic forces, and France could pursue missile defence cooperation (or not, as it sees fit). Should such arrangements be worked out, the American criteria mentioned earlier would be met, and France would have a more relevant, more affordable, and more sustain- able nuclear deterrent. While it would be technologically interdependent with the American deterrent, it would also enable France to raise the level of European stra- tegic cooperation and capabilities. The existence of French – British – American nuclear cooperation might make even more unlikely the possibility of a split in the event of a strategic crisis. Finally, if the partners were able to reduce their nuclear arsenals as a result of trilateral cooperation, so much the better.
10 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT: OIL Args
Price of oil is on an uptrend. T. BOONE PICKENS http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=86576 Mar. 04, 2010
T. Boone Pickens told FOX Business Network’s Brian Sullivan that oil prices will go up to $85-90 per barrel by the end of the year and that he’s close to signing three new deals using wind energy. On oil going to $85-$90 dollars a barrel: It’s gonna go up. You are not going to go to 100, we hit it out of the park last year. This year I’ll say we’ll be $85-$90 by the end of the year. On being close to announcing three new deals with wind energy. “I think I’ll be able to announce three deals that will be done on the wind within the next 30 days. I haven’t signed them up yet, but I am close. Wind will happen. It’s a renewable, people want it. Is it going to replace coal, no. Is it going to replace natural gas, no. But it will have a place in our overall energy mix…Get on American fuel is what we need to do and cut off the imports from OPEC.” On if hedging between natural gas and wind energy: “I hedge myself and I believe in both” On the future of wind: “Under certain circumstances [wind is profitable]. If you have a power purchase agreement, yes, you can make it work in some cases. The place where it works best is with natural gas at $7…We’re going to use it for transportation fuel that’s why [natural gas will go to $7]…it will work, there may be a little rough water along the way, but it will work.”
Oil Price is determined by speculators not as much by world events “Stop the Oil Speculators” (http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1276-Stop-the-Oil-Speculators.html )May 27. 2008 Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.” Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.” Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves. In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”
11 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT: Oil Args
Our economy is not recovering
Crane Durham 4-2-10 http://nothingbuttruth.com/maximum-crane/2010/04/why-we-are-not-in-an-economic- recovery/ “Why We Are Not In An Economic Recovery”
The war between private enterprise and the government has reached a fever pitch under the Obama administration. The idea of creating a strong American Economy with a “new foundation” has become a staple in the President’s statements regarding economic recovery. Our President and his fellow statists in Congress have met this economic downturn with Keynesian, big government interventions. From a stimulus, which had to take or borrow money from one group of taxpayers and give it to another, to a health care law that this week bore the fruit of a public hearing for companies who have dared to calculate the cost differential between maintaining certain benefits or paying a fine (tax); the federal government is using its full power (defined and implied) to regulate, intimidate and control businesses. These events are not anomalies: The extension of unemployment benefits, the take-over of student loans and the demonization of any would be competitor to government have all sent the message: If you dare to compete with the Federal Government you will be punished. These actions have, and continue to destroy investment, innovation and subsequently job creation. A recent LA Times piece detailed the recessions of Reagan and Obama. The key difference: The current (Obama’s) recession job losses are actually just below those of President Reagan’s. However, it is in the measure of job creation where Reagan’s record dwarfs Obama’s anemic results. All the talk of GDP growth and green jobs is just hot air. Without an environment where productivity through free enterprise is incentivized; you end up with consistent double digit unemployment and government picking the chosen few who are able to succeed.
Iraq war increases oil price Nick Timiraos March 20, 2008 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/20/obama-ties-iraq-war-to-high-oil- prices-weak-economy/ Obama Ties Iraq War to High Oil Prices, Weak Economy
Sen. Barack Obama took a different tack in his second speech on the Iraq war in two days by addressing its toll on the economy. On Wednesday, Obama criticized his rivals for undermining America’s security during a speech in Fayetteville, N.C., near Fort Bragg, home to the 82nd Airborne Division. Today’s address, at the University of Charleston in West Virginia, tied the high cost of the war to the economic slowdown hitting Americans at the pump and the pocketbook. The Illinois senator argued that the war had raised costs for American households by $100 a month, and that it had contributed to higher oil prices. “When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war,” he said. And he criticized President Bush for doing “what no other president has done” by cutting taxes at all income levels during a time of war, and he attacked John McCain for his call to extend those tax cuts. The war, he said, had also made America less safe because Washington was paying for its costs “with loans from China.” “Having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy,” he said. A McCain spokeswoman said that Obama was rehashing old arguments on foreign policy while promising higher taxes on middle-income families “when they’re hurting the most.”
12 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF ***DA Blocks*** A2 Obama bad DA
(a brief strategy note before reading this, the block could be run one of two ways. First, it could be run by contesting the link, and saying that cap won’t be passed straight up, or it could be run by saying that cap and trade solves for global warming, which outweights their impacts. I would personally go for the former off these two arguments, or some combination thereof)
1) Even if liberals support the plan, it won’t translate into votes or political capital, because the public isn’t interested in Turkey, there is literally no public interest in our presence in Turkey
2) If anything, it would energize the republican base, as the GOP vehemently opposes “weakening” NATO Woster 10 (“GOP House hopefuls blast Obama nuclear arms policy http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=5345) Among other things, Obama’s policy - which seems to disappoint those on both far right and the far left - would be shaped on the assumption that “rogue states” and terorists organizations are much more of a threat to safe future of this nation than past adversaries Russian and China. It also rejects the development of new nuclear weapons and further reduces the situations in which the United States would respond to attacks with nuclear weapons. The GOP U.S. House candidates were unanimous in their disapproval. “It was a terrible decision that lacked all leadership,” Noem said. “I think when we telegraph our intentions to people who would do us harm, we make a grave error,” Curd said. Nelson called on the U.S. to “remain vigilant” against profound threats to national security and worried that Obama “seems to think Russia and China will remain friendly” when that’s far from guaranteed.
So, republicans are opposed to the removal of nukes to begin with, and democrats are going to be indifferent to it, because they’re going to be focusing on bigger issues such a Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an extremely small, if any, link to this disad
3) Even assuming that the plan passes, Obama still won’t be able to pass cap, competing legislation ensures By Kristen Friend, staff U.S. Supreme Court writer – June 23, 2010 (Senate Democrats Wrestle over Climate Change Cap and Trade http://www.seolawfirm.com/2010/06/senate-democrats-wrestle-over- climate-change-cap-and-trade/ ) Climate change legislation has succumbed to the familiar fate of many recent Democratic measures: a perceived failure to be able to hit the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. While the House answered Obama’s call for climate chance legislation in 2009 with the passage of the House American Clean Energy and Security Act, the conventional wisdom moving into the summer of 2010 is that climate change legislation in the Senate is now dead on arrival. Several bills are competing for primacy, none of which seem to have the support they need to pass anytime soon. In an apparent attempt to prove cliché that (recent) history is destined to repeat itself, Senate Democrats are causing as many headaches for themselves in the debate over climate change legislation as is their Republican opposition. Two Democratic bills, the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act and the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act offer competing views on how emissions should be regulated.
13 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Liberal-leaning Senators, having already been snubbed on the issues of the public option in Health Insurance Reform and tougher regulation of banks and financial institutions during the financial reform debate, are threatening to walk and pull support for any bill that does not include strong incentives to limit carbon emissions. And, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), has gone so far as to call for the Senate to abandon efforts to enact comprehensive climate change legislation altogether, urging lawmakers instead to focus on preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
So cap isn’t even at the top of Obama’s agenda, he’s only going to be able to pass political docile legislation and won’t have the PC for a healthcare-esque climate debate
4) Liberals won’t come out to support Obama in November regardless of any legislation he passes, they view him as selling out to traditional Washington interests
a.) Liberal base doesn’t care about democratic losses in November Sargent July 15, 2010 (Politico's theory: Liberal bloggers don't care if Dems sustain large losses this fall http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum- line/2010/07/politicos_theory_liberal_blogg.html) So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self- protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is also how he campaigned. The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Stan McCrystal's scalp has been replaced with David Petreaus's, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely clapped for the passage of health care. They treat the firing of a blogger from the Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation over the next couple years. In private conversations, White House officials are contemptuous of what they see as liberal lamentations unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities.
b.) Republican momentum overwhelming Sessions, Cornyn see Republican momentum for midterm elections Todd J. Gillman WASHINGTON, Jul 18, 2010 (The Dallas Morning News - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) --
Republicans need to pick up 39 seats in the 435-seat House to reclaim the majority they lost in 2006. Sessions predicted his side would win “slightly over 40” seats. Van Hollen predicted that Democrats will still control the House after November. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report identifies 64 Democrat-controlled seats as competitive, including two in Texas. That’s more than enough to put the House in play, though Cook predicts GOP gains of 30 to 40 seats, and other handicappers project more modest advances. Midterm elections are often costly to the president’s party. Democrats picked up 30 seats in their 2006 takeover, a serious blow to President George W. Bush. In 1994, the year of the Contract With America, Republicans upended the Clinton presidency with a gain of 52 seats, four more than Democrats claimed in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.
14 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF So what these two cards are saying is that even if Liberals support the removal of TNW’s, there is so much momentum that the liberals are going to get steamrolled this election cycle. The Neg. ignores how election cycles work, it’s a distinctly pendulum-esque cycle, especially in today’s anti-incumbent environment
5.) Agenda will not pass, Obama a liability Obama Political Capital Fading; Coattails Hurt Dems By Shannon Bell Wednesday, May 19th, 2010 at 3:34 pm Regardless of what media spinsters say, Obama’s coattails had a negative effect in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Pennsylvania and Arkansas. And of course let’s not forget Rand Paul’s decisive win in Kentucky. Who would have believed that the son of Ron Paul could beat an establishment Republican for US Senate? Not without the Tea Party, and not without Barack Obama; because without Obama there is no Tea Party. Senators Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln are the latest high profile victims to Obama’s coattails; Lincoln purely for her vote on healthcare and Specter for a myriad of reasons. They learned the hard way what dems in the previously mentioned states should have warned them about; Obama’s political capital won’t pull you out of the fire. Specter would have been better off staying in the Republican Party and going down to defeat in the primary with a modicum of respect. Instead he hitched his wagon to the Obama star that is fading fast. He switches to the Democratic Party (with a little coaxing from Obama I’m sure) and now he goes down as the turncoat that he truly is, Obama returning the favor, abandoning the abandoner when sure defeat was inevitable. The bottom line is this; Obama’s political capital after his election was spent fast and furious on his radical left-wing agenda and now there’s nothing left for the dems who supported him. The only hope for democrats this fall is to avoid Obama’s coattails at all cost. Although at this point it’s probably too late.
6) Even if a Cap bill passes the senate, utilities will castrate the legislation New Republic July 15, 2010 (The Energy Bill Could Be A Disaster, If Utilities Get Their Way http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/76296/energy-bill-could-be-disaster-if-utilities-get-their-way) Now we know: Utilities may agree to the proposal, but not without extracting some heavy concessions. And what they're demanding could turn the bill into a disaster. According to Politico, utilities would support a cap if they get relief from various EPA regulations governing a whole swath of different pollutants—not just heat-trapping gases like carbon-dioxide, but also sulfur-dioxide (which causes acid rain), and harmful emissions like mercury and nitrogen oxide. Just last week the EPA unveiled sweeping new rules to crack down on smog- and soot-forming pollutants like SO2 and NOx. These sorts of pollution rules get updated continuously under the Clean Air Act, and utilities are always fighting them every step of the way. Now they see a way out. But as Dave Roberts says over at Grist, what utilities are proposing looks like a terrible trade-off from an environmental perspective. That new EPA rule on smog and soot, for instance, would likely force utilities to shut down many of their aging, creaky coal-fired plants in the next few years. Many of these old plants were grandfathered in under the original Clean Air Act and have been spewing harmful pollutants (and greenhouse gases) into the air for decades. These plants made a lot of money for their utilities because they've long since been paid off and are cheap to operate. And utilities don't want to shut them down. A weak utility-only cap-and-trade system, however, could allow a lot of the dirtier coal-fired plants to stay running for a long time. Now, in general, cap-and-trade is pretty good way to reduce carbon emissions. But it's looking more and more likely that the cap being proposed would do much less than existing EPA regulations to clean up the air. After all, carbon dioxide isn't the only pollutant out there. It
15 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF doesn't make much sense to allow power plants to keep churning out a whole bunch of other toxins that cause a lot of health problems—like mercury or nitrogen oxide—so long as they're making headway on greenhouse gases. Now, one possible compromise would be to fold in proposed legislation by Tom Carper and Lamar Alexander that would set up a separate cap-and- trade system for sulfur-dioxide, nitrogen-dioxide, and mercury. Many clean-air groups like that approach. But that would actually have to get included in the energy legislation. Otherwise, utilities are just getting a free pass.
7. Cap and trade will not hurt the economy Cooper 09 CBO Finds That Cap And Trade Will Work - In The Long Term Posted by Charles Cooper ) Projecting likely trend lines through the year 2050, the CBO concludes that the passage of the legislation will slightly dampen long-term GDP growth. But with a much larger economy by the middle of the century - the CBO expectation is that it will be approximately two-and-a-half times as large as it is today, the impact on peoples' everyday lives will be muted.
So at the end of the day, Cap and Trade is not on top of Obama’s agenda, even if it was, he would not win in passing it because 1) he doesn’t have the political capital to pass such far reaching legislation and 2) Republicans are going to oppose any legislation that he tries to pass on principle and democrats won’t stand with him for fear of being linked to the administration (Bell 10). And even if he does manage to pass it, special interests and the republicans will so water down the legislation that it won’t have any affect on the economy (Cooper 09)
16 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT: Obama Good
1.Post McChrystal firing Obama will get credit and blame for military action New York Times, 6/24/10 Of greater significance than the actual dismissal of General McChrystal is President Obama's powerful message to the American people that the Constitution has establishedthe principle of civilian control of the military, with the president serving as commander in chief of the armed forces.
2.Even downsizing presence at bases spurs military opposition Carlton Meyer, former Marine Corps officer who participated in military operations around the world and has written articles for dozens of military magazines, 2009, “Outdated Military Bases in Japan,” http://www.g2mil.com/Japan-bases.htm However, American Generals and Admirals resist change because they enjoy the imperial flavor of "their" bases in Japan. They stall political efforts to close outdated bases by insisting on years to study proposed changes, and then years to implement them. A recent example occurred when U.S. Army Generals quietly defeated Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to downsize Army bases in Germany. If President Obama expects results, he must dictate changes and insist on rapid action. Closing and downsizing foreign military bases requires no congressional approval. The first steps are to close the American airbases at Futenma and Atsugi, and transfer the aircraft carrier battle group based near Tokyo to the USA.
3. Even though the United States public supports a decrease in military action, it is met with fierce hate within the government itself.
4. Reduced military presence in Afghanistan drains capital – congressional public and defense industry opposition - fears of looking weak on defense trump Zakaria, 10 (Rafia, Director Amnesty International USA, BBC, 7/1) From a military and strategic perspective, Gen McChrystal's departure signals the difficulties in implementing COIN, or the 'counter- insurgency' doctrine, popularized by the American military. Focused on using a large troop presence to secure areas and win the support of the local population, COIN came under severe scrutiny during the Afghanistan review earlier this year. As the now infamous article in the Rolling Stone magazine indicates, when the decision to order larger troop numbers was made, it seemed that Gen McChrystal had won and President Obama was committed to devoting the resources that would translate into dividends in Afghanistan. Of course, as pointed out by Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations in an op-ed article published by The New York Times the day after the general's resignation, troop levels in Afghanistan still remained far below those in Iraq and many promised reinforcements had not arrived. The lacklustre success of the Marja offensive and the increasing number of casualties -- coming as they did before the initiation of an even riskier campaign in Kandahar -- also signalled the increasing intractability of implementing a strategy that would yield dividends in the form of winning over Afghan hearts and minds. The above reflects some of the challenges in implementing a strategy that has been touted as the magic solution for the Afghanistan problem.Ironically, however, the biggest challenges in implementing COIN lie not in the logistics of war-making or the forbidding terrain of Afghanistan but the juxtaposition of the American civilian-military power dynamic in a post 9/11 world. While the supremacy of the political branches of the government over the military and the unquestioned status of the president as the commander in chief is one of the cornerstones of American democracy, it also places certain decision-making challenges on the political branches. In the post 9/11 culture of fear, political figures -- be they in Congress or in the executive branch -- have made the provision of security a staple of their political campaigns. Candidates running for Congress, the Senate and even local offices continue to be reluctant to evaluate the efficacy of existing strategies and remain committed to seeing counter-terrorism as a political issue rather than a military one. The American public in turn unquestionably believes in the necessity of endless counter-terror dollars in making the homeland secure, thus making the political appeal of pandering to their fears a staple of electoral politics. Resultantly, the political branches of the US government are unwilling to make unpopular decisions regarding foreign wars. Military strategy is thus dictated by the political demands of being tough on terrorists and producing low-cost victories that respond to the population's insatiable demand for security. Even those such as Vice President Biden, who were vehemently opposed to the increase of troops in Afghanistan, remain politically committed to the idea that the quick elimination of the bad guys is crucial to American security. Even as the demands of the military change in response to 17 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF unconventional warfare, American elected representatives refuse to close down bases and stop manufacturing equipment designed for a Cold War world, for fear of eliminating jobs and angering constituents. The consequence is that the war in Afghanistan has become a primarily political campaign outsourced to the United States military, which is then expected to deliver the political material to orchestrate campaign narratives that present candidates as being committed to national security, rather than actually producing positive results in places such as Afghanistan.
5. Massive GOP backlash to reductions in Afghanistan presence Congressional Quarterly Politics, ’10 [CQ Politics News, “GOP Criticizes Withdrawal Plan as Undermining Afghanistan Efforts,” 6/16/10, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003684343, accessed 6/21/10] Senate Republicans on Wednesday attacked President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July of next year, saying that the United States was sending a self-defeating message to its allies in the region. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan, assured lawmakers that Obama’s July 2011 date signaled the beginning of a process of troop withdrawals whose pace would be determined by conditions on the ground. “That is not the day when we look for the door and turn out the lights, but when a process begins,” said Petraeus, who resumed his testimony Wednesday. He fainted from dehydration during testimony June 15. “It would be helpful if your sentiments were shared by the president, the vice president and the national security adviser,” said Republican JohnMcCain of Arizona, who cited Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. , and national security adviser James L. Jones as saying that the July 2011 start of the troop withdrawal was “etched in stone.” “Right now, we’re sounding an uncertain trumpet,” McCain said. “Our allies in the region are convinced that we’re leaving.” Obama laid down the July 2011 date for the beginning of a U.S. pullback in a speech at West Point last December, where he outlined his strategy to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. At the time, Obama stressed that the pace of the withdrawal would be dictated by conditions on the ground.
6. LIBERALS WONT CRITICIZE MILITARY PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN – SEVERAL REASONS Cohen ‘10 [Michael A., PhD, Director of International Affairs at The New School, The New Republic, “The Left’s Silence on Afghanistan,” 6/11/10, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127762829&ft=1&f=1057, accessed 6/22/10] While no one can be sure how escalation in Afghanistan will turn out, the warning signs are blinking red. Yet the reaction from many of the president's liberal and left-of-centersupporters has been acquiescence and even silence. The Pentagon report — like much of the recent bad news out of Afghanistan — caused barely a ripple on the left. It's a familiar pattern. The American Prospect, along with Salon, has devoted enormous and laudable energy to covering civil liberties issues related to the U.S. war on terror, but has run only one major article on Afghanistan since Obama's December speech at West Point. The Center for American Progress's Wonk Room blog has not run a headlined story about the war since January. At Talking Points Memo, which is perhaps the most prominent liberal blog, Afghanistan rarely rates a mention. Paul Krugman, a frequent critic of the Iraq War (and President Obama), has not written a column on Afghanistan since the president took office. And The New Republic itself has largely avoided critical consideration of the war. (The Nation and Mother Jones have been exceptions to this relative silence.) So why are so many liberal voices muted? Why after so many liberals aggressively asserted themselves in criticizing the foreign policy conduct of the Bush administration — and in particular the war in Iraq — have they ignored the war in Afghanistan? Over the past several weeks I asked a number of prominent progressives why liberals have been so silent about the war in Afghanistan. Several themes emerged. First, is the obvious information gap. There are fewer reporters in Afghanistanthan in Iraq — and little in the way of TV coverage. As a result, it is difficult to get a clear sense of what is happening on the ground and what is working and not working. It is for many liberal publications simply easier to write about the debate over health care reform or other domestic issues. Mark Schmitt, executive editor of The American Prospect told me that it is "tough to produce something well-informed on Afghanistan" because of financial constraints and the challenge in finding knowledgeable writers on the ground to do actual reporting. Second, in contrast to the war in Iraq, liberals generally support the objectives of the war in Afghanistan — and for a good part of the past seven years have been calling on the U.S. to devote more attention to the war there, rather than Iraq. They recall Afghanistan's role in the planning of September 11 and are aware of the continued presence of al Qaeda in the region. And many fear that a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan would subject Afghans, and in particular Afghan women, to a return of the human rights abuses that defined
18 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF previous Taliban rule. That makes even those with serious misgivings about the Obama administration's strategy more willing to give it the benefit of a doubt. Third, is the hangover from Iraq. According to Michael W. Hanna, a fellow at the Century Foundation, progressives "have yet to come to grips with the dominant surge narrative, which suggests that it was largely responsible for turning the tide in Iraq." Hanna noted the factors that brought stability to Iraq were largely indigenous to Iraqi society and were only partially the result of President Bush's decision to increase troop levels. But the misunderstood "success" of the surge has led many progressives to now "feel chastened about speaking out against Obama's escalation in Afghanistan." Many seem to feel that if they were wrong about escalation in Iraq then, perhaps they are wrong about escalation in Afghanistan today.
Not Unique: Obama has already spent all Political Capital Linda Feldmann, Staff writer / March 22, 2010 DA 7/20/10 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-bill-victory-Obama-s-historic-moment
The House Democrats' passage of reform legislation Sunday night means Mr. Obama will have succeeded where presidents going back decades before him have failed, setting the stage for the biggest expansion of the American social safety net in nearly 50 years. A soured public, a narrowed agenda But the cost to Obama has been profound. He began his presidency 14 months ago with sky-high approval ratings of 70 percent and a big, ambitious agenda that began with a record economic stimulus package, then turned quickly to healthcare. Climate change and financial regulatory reform stood next in line. Obama's original goal was to complete healthcare last summer, but the road got so bogged down in a fruitless effort at bipartisanship – and a fierce conservative backlash – he was forced to go it alone with only Democratic votes. Obama's job approval now hovers just below 50 percent. And while his hard-fought victory on health reform will give the president and his Democratic allies a boost of confidence going forward, they have burned up so much political capital that analysts see little room for more major initiatives anytime soon. "If the administration is wise, it will understand that with the possible exception of financial regulatory reform, they've shot their wad for this Congress," says William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
OBAMA MUST SPEND POLITICAL CAPITAL, OR ELSE IT WILL EXPIRE Lincoln Mitchell june 18, 2009 DA 7/20/10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-for-obama-to- start-s_b_217235.html# Throughout his presidential campaign, but more notably, during his presidency, President Obama has shown himself to have an impressive ability to accumulate political capital. During his tenure in the White House, Obama has done this by reaching out to a range of constituencies, moderating some of his programs, pursuing middle of the road approaches on key foreign policy questions and, not insignificantly, working to ensure that his approval rating remains quite high. Political capital is not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right moment to spend it. Political capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly, it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the moment in which Obama, who has spent the first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The next few months will be a key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by the New Year anyway. Much of what President Obama has done in his first six months or so in office has been designed to build political capital, interestingly he has sought to build this capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by traveling extensively, reintroducing to America to foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly succeeded in pushing his political opponents to the fringes. This tactic was displayed during the effort to pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated to a loud and annoying, but largely irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of Obama's recent speech in Cairo as well. Significantly, Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by meaningfully taking on any powerful interests. He declined to take Wall Street on regarding the financial crisis, has prepared to, but not yet fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance companies, nor has he really confronted any important Democratic Party groups such as organized labor. This strategy, however, will not be fruitful for much longer. There are now some very clear issues where Obama should be spending political capital. The most obvious of these is health care. The battle for health care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama presidency, but for American society over the next decades. It is imperative that Obama push for the best and most comprehensive health care reform possible. This will likely mean not just a bruising legislative battle, but one that will pit powerful interests, not just angry Republican ideologues, against the President.
19 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT CMR DA
1. No Link- Their Bell 2009 card claims the U.S. needs to maintain nuclear weapon capability. Our plan just gets rid of TNW, America will still have plenty of nuclear weapon capability.
2. Case O/W- even though there are some people are against moving out TNW’s, we have shown 3 nuclear war scenarios that will happen if we don’t. Our impacts happen more quickly ext my WSJ 2010 card that Iran is in the final stages of getting a nuke, their impact will only happen if we lose U.S. hege, but we solve for this by increasing soft power with Russia modeling.
3. No Link- they read this Kohn 1999 card claiming that CMR is key to maintain hege, but there card talks about how military recruiting could be damaged, this is not what our plan is talking about at all, we are removing TNW’s, which we already proved doesn’t damage CMR, having 3 impact scenarios is a lot worse than having military recruitment get damaged
4. No link- They have no evidence supporting that if we withdrawal TNW’s, military recruitment will go down
5. They have no evidence showing that TNW’s will specifically effect civil relation, TNWs are almost never talked about, so the civilians don’t care about it, they are more focused on the 2 wars going on
6. There is no way that pulling 90 nukes out of Turkey will hurt civil relations, because the U.S. will still have nuclear capabilities
7. No Internal link to impact-
- Their Kohn 99 card never shows how CMR is key to maintaing hege - Their Khalilzad 95 card is talking about how U.S. leadership will help stop nuclear prolif, we have 2 specific scenarios on how our Plan will stop prolif and how U.S will be seen as a leader and Russia will follow suit, Ext my Kibaroglu 2010 card that we stop Iran prolif and Ext my Pikayev 2008 that Russia will follow us if we pull out TNW’s, this shows our soft power will increase
Link Turn- Keeping TNW’s in Turkey actually weakens non-proliferation treaties and is apt to allow nuclear prolif of Iran and North Korea ext my Kristensen 2005 card and Pilger 08 card that shows this.
20 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT Reverse Spending DA
1. No link- Their link talks about troop withdrawal in Afghanistan or Iraq, our Aff is about Turkey
2. No link- Taking out 90 TNW’s from Turkey would actually cost money, not save money, therefore their entire link goes away
3. Their Center for Security Policy is from 5 years ago and it states that with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the FCS can’t be funded, it’s been 5 years since then, so the FCS should be shut down by now, or at least the laser sector of it
4. No internal link- Their National Defense Magazine 2001 card talks about lasers used to run a humvee truck, so they don’t have to use gas, and chemical lasers that shoot down other rockets, therefore they have no Internal Link to the impact, which talks about blinding laser weapons
5. Their impact card doesn’t even talk about extinction, it completely mistagged. It talks about blinding laser weapons, which wouldn’t lead to extinction in any way, they would just blind people on a battle field. Give me a break, how could a laser that blinds people lead to extinction?
6. Their impact card is from 1995 and the impact hasn’t happened yet, so there is no impact, because it would of happened by now
7. Their DA states money would be sent to the FCS and never specifically states that the FCS will put it into the laser technology sector
21 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF ***AT FEM IR K***
1. no solvency- there is no way that the entire world would drop the system we have right now
2. Perm – Do Both: The affirmative rejects masculine mindset by rejecting the notion of traditional securitization. The affirmative would be a step back. The Warren and Cady Evidence specifically supports this by talking about how traditional patriarchal re-appropriates the same aggression – plan acts unilaterally without any perception of dominance.
3. Perm solves best—need to combine methodological inquiry with immediate action. Molly Cochran Assistant Professor of International Affairs @ Georgia Institute for Technology, Normative Theory in International Relations. 1999, Page 272 To conclude this chapter, while modernist and postmodernist debates continue, while we are still unsure as to what we can legitimately identify as a feminist ethical/political concern, while we still are unclear about the relationship between discourse and experience, it is particularly important for feminists that we proceed with analysis of both the material (institutional and structural) as well as the discursive. This holds not only for feminists, but for all theorists oriented towards the goal of extending further moral inclusion in the present social sciences climate of epistemological uncertainty. Important ethical/political concerns hang in the balance. We cannot afford to wait for the meta-theoretical questions to be conclusively answered. Those answers may be unavailable. Nor can we wait for a credible vision of an alternative institutional order to appear before an emancipatory agenda can be kicked into gear. Nor do we have before us a chicken and egg question of which comes first: sorting out the metatheoretical issues or working out which practices contribute to a credible institutional vision. The two questions can and should be pursued together, and can be via moral imagination. Imagination can help us think beyond discursive and material conditions which limit us, by pushing the boundaries of those limitations in thought and examining what yields. In this respect, I believe international ethics as pragmatic critique can be a useful ally to feminist and normative theorists generally.
4, Their rejection of the permutation re-entrenches the hierarchies they seek to overturn Mary Caprioli, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Tennessee, International Studies Review, June 2004, p.256 There is little utility in constructing a divide if none exists. As Thomas Kuhn (1962) argues, common measures do exist across paradigms that provide a shared basis for theory. It seems overly pessimistic to accept Karl Popper's "Myth of Framework," which postulates that "we are prisoners caught in the framework of our theories, our expectations, our past experiences, our language, and that as a consequence, we cannot communicate with or judge those working in terms of a different paradigm" (Neufeld 1995:44). Some feminists (for example, Tickner 1996, 2001; Peterson 2002; Steans 2003) appear to embrace this "Myth of Framework" by accentuating the differences between the perspectives of feminist and IR theorists based on their past experiences and languages and criticize IR theorists for their lack of communication with feminist IR scholars. Ironically, the "Myth of Framework" shares a number of assumptions with Hobbes's description of the state of nature that feminists routinely reject. The "Myth of Framework" assumes no middle ground—scholars are presumably entrenched in their own worldviews without hope of compromise or the ability to understand others' worldviews. If this is the case, scholars are doomed to discussions with like-minded individuals rather than having a productive dialogue with those outside their own worldview. Scholars who accept the "Myth of Framework" have essentially created a Tower of Babel in which they choose not to understand each other's language. The acceptance of such a myth creates conflict and establishes a hierarchy within international relations scholarship even though conventional feminists theoretically seek to identify and eradicate conflict and hierarchy within society as a whole.
5. The AFFIRMATIVE framework is superior – it allows for both philosophical acceptance of the negative framework and pragmatic action to solve the problem –
22 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF 6. Perm – Rethink utilizing feminine frame and then enact plan.
7. The Perm solves better: a.) It allows for the aff to do both the pragmatic action and rethink escaping hierarchies. Cross apply the Cochran evidence above and particularly the Caprioli evidence that suggests this is the ONLY way not to re-entrench hierarchy b.) This proves the K is not competitive. At worst, we would do more than the aff –but nothing contradictory to the aff. The affirmative plan is logical precursor to all-out nuclear withdrawal.
8. NO LINK – The plan doesn’t re-entrench patriarchy. Plan acts unilaterally without any sense of hierarchal dominance – it just removes nukes. If you don’t buy this it PROVES THE K logic is infinitely regressive – nothing woruld work. Proves there is NO ALTERNATIVE
9. IR feminism isn’t needed to address “the root cause” of global problems – realism achieves the same goals Murray, Department of Political Science, University of Bristol, 1997 (Alistair, Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics, p. 192-193 Consequently, it is not surprising that the third strut of this new feminist epistemology, a broader notion of national security, seems simply unnecessary. Acknowledging the interdependence of human security in an age of nuclear holo caust and environmental degeneration would hardly seem to be a preserve of feminism. What of everything that George Kennan has said on this subject over the last forty years? Nor can we accept the notion that we need to redefine conflict resolution to focus more on mutually beneficial outcomes, when realism is deeply concerned with the amelioration of difference by diplomacy. What of the nine points with which Morgenthau concludes Politics among Nations? Nor can we accept the notion that `maternal thinking' and a female, contextual morality are required to attempt to confine conflict to non-violent means. A persistent theme of realism is that humility of self and toleration of others are the foremost moral imperatives, that conflict should not be permitted to become an ideological war of absolutes in which all enemies are monsters, all actions are legitimate, and all peaces are but punitive armistices. One ultimately has to question the need for a specifically feminist theory of international relations. We currently do not have two radically opposed standpoints, masculine and feminine, but a unified human standpoint which, with modifications, serves us reasonably well.
10. No link- the neg. assumes that the plan is operating under a patriarchal system, but withdrawing troops would actually decrease U.S. dominance on the world scale.
11. Impact Turn- Their alternative leads women away from politics and engages in elitist criticism Smith leading member of the US International Socialist Organization, 1994 Sharon, International Socialism 62 Spring, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=311 But rather than channelling women into greater political involvement, consciousness-raising tended to lead women away from activity. The typical consciousness-raising group lasted nine months, and most women left the women’s movement after that. For many of those who stayed, consciousness-raising became an end in itself. And it led to a turn away from politics and an ever greater atmosphere of personalism within the movement. Even Redstockings, quoted above, dissolved itself within less than two years of issuing its ‘manifesto’. In the words of one feminist involved, ‘When you stop looking out, and turn exclusively inward, at some point you begin to feed on each other. If you don’t direct your anger externally—politically—you turn it against yourselves.’18 The politics of separatism exacerbated this tendency in organisations of radical feminists. Although set up as ‘non- hierarchical’, the picture was hardly one of mutual support. Instead the atmosphere tended to be intensely moralistic and extremely judgmental towards lifestyle. One woman who participated in a women’s liberation group said afterwards, ‘If [consciousness-raising is] all you do, then the enemy becomes the enemy within. First they attack leaders, then lifestyle, then racism.’ Another described, ‘In the name of anti-elitism, they were trying to pull off the most elite thing possible . The meeting ended with charges and counter-charges and a distinct lack of a feeling of sisterhood.’19 Some women’s liberation groups carried the idea of lifestyle politics to an extreme, by forming living or other collectives based upon strict women-only guidelines. One extreme such living collective was
23 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Boston’s ‘Cell 16’, which demanded that every woman living there practise celibacy; only one third of the women could be married; and any woman who had a male child was forced to give him up.20
10. Claiming patriarchy is the root cause reinscribes the white, gendered subject—This turns the critique and increases the risk of violence against non-white men Sunera Thobani, Women’s studies at the University of British Columbia, “White wars: Western feminisms and the `War on Terror',” Feminist Theory (2007) 8: 169 In the absence of a critique of the racially exclusionary forms of feminisms (including radical feminisms) that can be found in the US, Eisenstein returns to the familiar terrain of white feminists claiming their own experience as gender victims to present themselves as the natural gender allies of women in the third world. Although Eisenstein does not re-centre the white imperial subject in quite the manner of Chesler or Butler, she does not fully de-centre it either. Rather, she allows for the feminized imperial subject to be presented as endangered by patriarchy, both of American and Muslim men, but not Muslim women as endangered by the racism of white men and women. Predictably then, there is considerable criticism of anti-racist and anti-colonial male leaders for their sexism, as there is of anti-racist feminists for inadequate comprehension of their oppression, but little substantive critique is to be found of the racism of white mainstream and radical feminisms. Disappointingly, this text demonstrates that a rejection of the East/West binary can coexist with the re-inscription of a white gendered subject position as innocent of, and removed from, its complicities with empire-building. Eisenstein’s highlighting of male violence in the US is certainly important, especially as patriarchal practices in their Western and ‘secular’ garb are being removed from scrutiny through the hypervisibility given to these practices in the Islamic context. But simply pointing to the white male domination of white women does not really challenge the Western racialized-gendered discourse that has defined non-white men as inherently, and far more, patriarchal and violent. This discourse has now become most virulently anti-Muslim, but it has been directed in the past against all third world peoples, most popularly through the Western cultural constructs of Black and third world ‘machismo’. Eisenstein surprisingly ignores this historical tradition of the West as she argues that a ‘Global Misogyny’ (2004: 150) lies at the core of the current conflict, with white women equally threatened by it.
11. Gender is not the root cause of war – Efforts to end gender injustice must start by dealing with war – Only the aff can provide the space necessary for change. Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor of International Relations at American University, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, 2001, pp.411-412 I began this book hoping to contribute in some way to a deeper understanding of war – an understanding that would improve the chances of someday achieving real peace, by deleting war from our human repertoire. In following the thread of gender running through war, I found the deeper understanding I had hoped for – a multidisciplinary and multilevel engagement with the subject. Yet I became somewhat more pessimistic about how quickly or easily war may end. The war system emerges, from the evidence in this book, as relatively ubiquitous and robust. Efforts to change this system must overcome several dilemmas mentioned in this book. First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, “if you want peace, work for justice.” Then, if one believes that sexism contributes to war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices. So, “if you want peace, work for peace.” Indeed, if you want justice (gender and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes towards war and the military may be the most important way to “reverse women’s oppression.” The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies, and moral grounding, yet, in light of this book’s evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate.
12. Epistemological concerns divert attention away from concrete political solutions- it’s a direct threat to solving war Houghton 8 [David Patrick, professor of political science @ the University of Central Florida, International Politics, March, Volume 45, Issue 2, pg. 115] Writing in 1989, Thomas Biersteker noted that 'the vast majority of scholarship in international relations (and the social sciences for that matter) proceeds without conscious reflection on its philosophical bases or premises. In professional meetings, lectures, seminars and the design of curricula, we do not often engage in serious reflection on the philosophical 24 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF bases or implications of our activity. Too often, consideration of these core issues is reserved for (and largely forgotten after) the introductory weeks of required concepts and methods courses, as we socialize students into the profession' (Biersteker, 1989). This observation -- while accurate at the time -- would surely be deemed incorrect were it to be made today. Even some scholars who profess regret at the philosophically self-regarding nature of contemporary of IR theory, nevertheless feel compelled to devote huge chunks of their work to epistemological issues before getting to more substantive matters (see for instance Wendt, 1999). The recent emphasis on epistemology has helped to push IR as a discipline further and further away from the concerns of those who actually practice IR. The consequent decline in the policy relevance of what we do, and our retreat into philosophical self- doubt, is ironic given the roots of the field in very practical political concerns (most notably, how to avoid war). What I am suggesting is not that IR scholars should ignore philosophical questions, or that such 'navel gazing' is always unproductive, for questions of epistemology surely undergird every vision of IR that ever existed. Rather, I would suggest that the existing debate is sterile and unproductive in the sense that the various schools of thought have much more in common than they suppose; stated more specifically, postpositivists have much more in common than they would like to think with the positivists they seek to condemn. Consequently, to the extent that there is a meaningful dialogue going on with regard to epistemological questions, it has no real impact on what we do as scholars when we look at the world 'out there'. Rather than focusing on epistemology, it is inevitably going to be more fruitful to subject the substantive claims made by positivists (of all metatheoretical stripes) and postpositivists to the cold light of day. My own view, as the reader may have gathered already, is that the empirical claims of scholars like Der Derian and Campbell will not often stand up to such harsh scrutiny given the inattention to careful evidence gathering betrayed by both, but this is a side issue here; the point is that substantive theoretical and empirical claims, rather than metatheoretical or epistemological ones, ought to be what divides the international relations scene today.
13. NO ALTERNATIVE: The K doesn’t allow for anything to happen - only micro-political action is possible which means NO STATE COULD EVER ACT – this flawed logic would have us do nothing to avoid war. The logic is problematic.
14. The kritik is essentialist, reproducing the exact stereotypes produced under patriarchy Whitworth, Assistant Professor of Political Science York University 94 Sandra, Feminism and International Relations: Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non- Governmental Institutions, p. 20 Even when not concerned with mothering as such, much of the politics that emerge from radical feminism within IR depend upon a 're-thinking' from the perspective of women. What is left unexplained is how simply thinking differently will alter the material realities of relations of domina tion between men and women.46 Structural (patriarchal) relations are acknowledged, but not analysed in radical feminism's reliance on the expe riences, behaviours and perceptions of 'women'. As Sandra Harding notes, the essential and universal 'man', long the focus of feminist critiques, has merely been replaced here with the essential and universal 'woman'.47 And indeed, that notion of 'woman' not only ignores important differ ences amongst women, but it also reproduces exactly the stereotypical vision of women and men, masculine and feminine, that has been produced under patriarchy.48 Those women who do not fit the mould - who, for exam ple, take up arms in military struggle - are quickly dismissed as expressing 'negative' or 'inauthentic' feminine values (the same accusation is more rarely made against men).49 In this way, it comes as no surprise when mainstream IR theorists such as Robert Keohane happily embrace the tenets of radical feminism.50 It requires little in the way of re-thinking or movement from accepted and comfortable assumptions and stereotypes. Radical feminists find themselves defending the same account of women as nurturing, pacifist, submissive mothers as do men under patriarchy, anti-feminists and the New Right. As some writers suggest, this in itself should give feminists pause to reconsider this position.51
15. Essentialism (even when used strategically or for empowering ends) leads to oppressive representations of identity—Producing classism, sexism and homophobia Kevin Gosine, Brock University Sociologist, “Essentialism Versus Complexity: Conceptions of Racial Identity Construction in Educational Scholarship,” CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 27, 1, 2002,: 81– 100, http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE27-1/CJE27-1-06Gosine.pdf Researchers might consider employing postmodern perspectives to highlight the various ways individuals negotiate, engage, and resist such collective identifications from the multiplicity of subject positions that comprise a given racial community. Put differently, it is important to account for the unique ways different social statuses continually intersect to complicate collective strivings for coherent racial identities. Although collective or intersubjective forms of racial identity can frequently work to protect and empower racialized youth living within a hostile, Eurocentric environment (Miller, 1999), the imposition of defensively situated (counter-hegemonic) essentialisms can be, as Yon’s (2000) interviews with Trevor and Margaret illustrate, just as confining or oppressive as the negatively valued representations that circulate within the dominant society. In both cases, human subjects are objectified through the imposition of confining, static labels — a situation that provides fertile ground for intra- communal classism, sexism, and homophobia. For this reason, it is worthwhile to explore the diverse effects of these 25 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF racialized communal forms of consciousness along with the multiplicity of ways in which individuals negotiate and make sense of them. Accounting for intra-group division, ambivalence, and rupture exposes the unstable and fluid nature of collective identities. ***Topicality Blocks*** AT: USFG
1. WE MEET THE NEGATIVE’S DEFINITION . -Our plan to remove TNW’s from Turkey uses all three branches of the government; the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary. -Also, a system of checks and balances is placed in the government so that all 3 branches have to look at the plan.
2. COUNTER DEFINITION
Babylon Online Dictionary, 2009 http://dictionary.babylon.com/united%20states%20federal%20government/,
The federal government of the United States is the United States governmental body that carries out the roles assigned to the federation of individual states established by the Constitution. The federal government has three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Through a system of separation of powers or "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.
By providing this definition our plan is topical because we not only use all three branches, but all three branches work together to pass our plan.
3. STANDARDS 1. Fairness- This is the most fair definition because it’s used as a common definition. When anybody thinks of the USFG they also think of this definition. 2. Reasonability. The affirmative team’s definition is reasonable. Creating harsh and stringent limitations on definitions of words used in the resolution over limits the topic to little to no cases. 3. Bright Line. The affirmative team’s definition creates a bright line on what is topical and what is not. A case that creates something permanently is topical.
( ). Literature Checks Abuse. The negative team read evidence against our case. Clearly, they thought our case was topical. Otherwise, they never would have taken the time to research it.
5. TOPICALITY SHOULD NOT BE A VOTING ISSUE 1. Clash- The clash is in check. They were able to make arguments about the case so it’s not legitimate to say they we’re not prepared. 2. Fairness- Unless anything we did in the round was actually unfair, you shouldn't vote against us.
26 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF
AT: Substantially
4. WE MEET THE NEGATIVE’S DEFINITION By removing all troops from Afghanistan we are removing at least 25% of military presence.
Christopher Layne, Professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A & M University, http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/definition-of-military-presence/, “Military presence” means bases with combat forces (or bases that normally are maintained by skeleton units but are maintained to receive combat forces crisis/surge type circumstances).
5. COUNTER DEFINITION Substantially means significant. Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online, http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy1.c1.msu.edu/views/ENTRY.html? entry=t23.e56062&srn=1&ssid=464527616#FIRSTHIT
Substantially adv. 1. to a great of significant extent 2. for the most part, essentially
By providing this definition our plan is topical because we are reducing the amount of troops in Afghanistan completely which is significant.
6. STANDARDS: THIS DEFINITION OF “SUBSTANTIALLY” IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE 1. Fairness- This is the most fair definition 2. Reasonability. The affirmative team’s definition is reasonable. Creating harsh and stringent limitations on definitions of words used in the resolution over limits the topic to little to no cases. 3. Bright Line. The affirmative team’s definition creates a bright line on what is topical and what is not. A case that creates something permanently is topical.
( ). Literature Checks Abuse. The negative team read evidence against our case. Clearly, they thought our case was topical. Otherwise, they never would have taken the time to research it.
4. TOPICALITY SHOULD NOT BE A VOTING ISSUE 1. Clash- The clash is in check. They were able to make arguments about the case so it’s not legitimate to say they we’re not prepared. 2. Fairness- Unless anything we did in the round was actually unfair, you shouldn't vote against us.
27 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT T- Reduce =/= Eliminate
1. We Meet- we reduce military presence in one or more of the topic countries
2. We Meet- we reduce military presence in all the countries together
3. Counterdefinition- Federal code proves elimination is a way to reduce.
US Code 2005 (Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue (December 2005), 26 CFR 54.4980F-1, http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/54-significantly-reducing-future-accrual-19711258) (c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms reduce or reduction include eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation
4. We meet our counterdefiniton- we eliminate troops from Afghanistan
5. Ground- there are many arguments the neg can run against our aff
6. Education- Limiting the topic to plans that don’t eliminate military presence kills education
7. T is not a voter- Clash checks abuse. Lit checks abuse. Competing interpretations are a race to the bottom.
28 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT Military Presence Topicality
1. We meet- We take TNW out of Turkey, therefore troops won’t need to guard them anymore, so we take out troops as well
2. Counter definition- Presence includes both troops and infrastructure. Barry M. Blechman et al, President of DFI International, Spring, 1997, Strategic Review, p.14 Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor scholars have yet settled on a single definition of presence. Technically, the term refers to both a military posture and a military objective. This study uses the term “presence” to refer to a continuum of military activities, from a variety of interactions during peacetime to crisis response involving both forces on the scene and those based in the United States. Our definition follows that articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Presence is the totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily) along with the requisite infrastructure and sustainment capabilities."
Presence includes forward basing and broad list of deployments. Richard J. Samuels, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for International Studies, 2006, "Forward Basing." Encyclopedia of U.S. National Security, pp.272-3 During peacetime, U.S. overseas military presence in strategic regions of the world, established to support international security objectives and national interests. Forward basing refers to the equipment, U.S. armed forces, and military facilities that are stationed in a foreign country or deployed at sea during peacetime. The more general term forward presence encompasses noncombat overseas U.S. military activities and includes, but is not limited to, bases, fixed and rotational deployments, access agreements, foreign military assistance, training of foreign armed forces, joint training exercises, intelligence sharing, and military-to-military contacts.
3. Literature checks abuse, obviously the Neg has many forms of literature against our case
4. Cross ex checks abuse
5. Standards: a. Predictability- This is a camp Aff, so they obviously know it will be run
b. Fairness- Our definition is more fair because it encompasses all types of military presence
c. Time Skew- We shouldn’t be wasting our time debating about T, when we should be focusing on policy making, hence the name of this kind of debate: policy
6. Topicality is not a voter because: a. Reasonability- Its only reasonable that the Aff is topical, the Aff came from a camp and the camps wouldn’t release a non-topical Aff, also our definition shows that the bases, weapons, and non-combat troops play a huge role in U.S presence in a topic country, our Aff proves this
29 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF b. Ground- Their definition limits the Aff, and takes away tons of ground, by narrowing the topic to a way too limited debate, our definition allows the Aff the ability to use all types of military presence, which is key to Aff ground
c. Education- Their definition kills education, because if the topic was just limited to troops we wouldn’t learn about all the other important things America is doing in the topic countries. Have nukes in Turkey is a huge deal as we’ve proved, so it is important that we learn about it. Our definition broadens the topic, so we can learn more about the topic we are on this year, which is the point of debate. Our definition allows this education to flourish and get the full learning experience of the topic
30 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF AT: T Presence??
7. WE MEET THE NEGATIVE’S DEFINITION Military presence is combat activites.
8. COUNTER DEFINITION Christopher Layne, Professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A & M University, http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/definition-of-military-presence/, “Military presence” means bases with combat forces (or bases that normally are maintained by skeleton units but are maintained to receive combat forces crisis/surge type circumstances).
By providing this definition our plan is topical because military presences is the combat forces.
9. THIS DEFINITION OF “military presence” IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE 1. Fairness- This is the most fair definition 2. Reasonability. The affirmative team’s definition is reasonable. Creating harsh and stringent limitations on definitions of words used in the resolution over limits the topic to little to no cases. 3. Bright Line. The affirmative team’s definition creates a bright line on what is topical and what is not. A case that creates something permanently is topical.
( ). Literature Checks Abuse. The negative team read evidence against our case. Clearly, they thought our case was topical. Otherwise, they never would have taken the time to research it.
5. TOPICALITY SHOULD NOT BE A VOTING ISSUE 1. Clash- The clash is in check. They were able to make arguments about the case so it’s not legitimate to say they we’re not prepared. 2. Marbury vs. Madison- The judge can vote outside the jurisdiction. As we are reasonably topical, the judge shouldn't vote against us 3. Fairness- Unless anything we did in the round was actually unfair, you shouldn't vote against us.
31 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Topicality- In
A) THE PLAN VIOLATES THE TERM “in”.
Dictionary.com, 2002, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in
In: Used to indicate inclusion within or occurrence during a period or limit of time: in ancient times; a task done in ten minutes.
B) VIOLATION;
The Aff doesn’t specify the timeframe, how long the plan will take.
C) STANDARDS: OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BEST 1. Topic Education- Our interpretation ensures the resolution and education. Debate helps you make good decisions, and our interpretation protects a vital distinction. Making us key to this education. 2. Ground- The affirmative destroys negative ground by running a nontopical case; they go outside the resolution which is negative ground and increases our research burden. 3. It’s common knowledge that the Government has three branches. 3. Education- if their nontopical, we can’t debate, and we can’t learn anything. 4. Bright line- There’s a line between topical and non-topical, if their on the non-topical side, we can’t run anything. 5. Ground-their abusive, we can’t run arguments against them, because their non-topical.
C) TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE 1. Education- We came to learn about military presence, allowing nontopical plans destroy all educational value. 2. Fairness- Allowing a nontopical case destroys fairness because we are not prepared to debate this argue. 3. Jurisdiction- it is outside the jurisdiction to vote on a non-topical case 4. Apriori- Topicality must come before anything else when the judge is voting, there fore you can ignore everything else and vote the aff. Non topical right now.
32 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF ***NEGATIVE*** Topicality- USFG
B) THE PLAN VIOLATES THE TERM “United States Federal Government”.
United States federal government refers to the three branches of the federal government. US Legal, No Date (“United States Federal Government Law and Legal Definition,” http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/) The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
B) VIOLATION;
The Aff doesn’t specify which part of the United States federal government is enforcing the plan, It could be any of the 3 and they could change this at any point in time which causes abuse to the neg team.
C) STANDARDS: OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BEST 6. Topic Education- Our interpretation ensures the resolution and education. Debate helps you make good decisions, and our interpretation protects a vital distinction. Making us key to this education. 7. Ground- The affirmative destroys negative ground by running a nontopical case; they go outside the resolution which is negative ground and increases our research burden. 3. It’s common knowledge that the Government has three branches. 8. Bright line- There’s a line between topical and non-topical, if their on the non-topical side, we can’t run anything. 9. Ground-their abusive, we can’t run arguments against them, because their non-topical.
D) TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE 1. Education- We came to learn about military presence, allowing nontopical plans destroy all educational value. 2. Fairness- Allowing a nontopical case destroys fairness because we are not prepared to debate this argue. 3. Jurisdiction- it is outside the jurisdiction to vote on a non-topical case. 4. Apriori- Topicality must come before anything else when the judge is voting, there fore you can ignore everything else and vote the aff. Non topical right now.
33 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF Topicality- In
A.)THE PLAN VIOLATES THE TERM “in”.
Dictionary.com, 2002, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in
In: Used to indicate inclusion within or occurrence during a period or limit of time: in ancient times; a task done in ten minutes.
B) VIOLATION;
The Aff doesn’t specify the timeframe, how long the plan will take.
C) STANDARDS: OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BEST 10. Topic Education- Our interpretation ensures the resolution and education. Debate helps you make good decisions, and our interpretation protects a vital distinction. Making us key to this education. 11. Ground- The affirmative destroys negative ground by running a nontopical case; they go outside the resolution which is negative ground and increases our research burden. 3. It’s common knowledge that the Government has three branches. 12. Education- if their nontopical, we can’t debate, and we can’t learn anything. 13. Bright line- There’s a line between topical and non-topical, if their on the non-topical side, we can’t run anything. 14. Ground-their abusive, we can’t run arguments against them, because their non-topical.
E) TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE 1. Education- We came to learn about military presence, allowing nontopical plans destroy all educational value. 2. Fairness- Allowing a nontopical case destroys fairness because we are not prepared to debate this argue. 3. Jurisdiction- it is outside the jurisdiction to vote on a non-topical case. 4. Apriori- Topicality must come before anything else when the judge is voting, there fore you can ignore everything else and vote the aff. Non topical right now.
34 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF T-Substantially = 85%
A)
-Substantially is at least 85%
Justice Cudahy, 5-30-95, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 55 F.3d 1318; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 13268
An exemption from partial withdrawal liability exists, however, for those employers for whom "substantially all the employees with respect to whom the employer has an obligation to contribute under the plan perform work in the building and construction industry." 29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A). The statute does not define "substantially all," but this court has defined it as 85 percent or more. Continental Can Co. v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 916 F.2d 1154, 1160 (7th Cir. 1990). The statute also does not define the time period during which the "substantially all" restriction applies. We are therefore given no guidance as to whether this restriction applies during only the last year of the three year testing period, during all three years, or during the entire eight years involved in the calculation of the partial withdrawal. Nor, to our knowledge, has any other court of appeals addressed this issue. -Definition of Military Presence
Thomason et al — 2002, James S., Senior Analyst, Strategy, Forces and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analyses EDUCATION Ph.D., International Relations, Northwestern University (1978) B.A., Government, Harvard College (1969) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE – HIGHLIGHTS Senior Projects Manager, Institute for Defense Analyses Director of consulting http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0207thomason.pdf
WHAT IS OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE? Our working def i n ition of US over seas mil i tary pres - ence is that it consists of all the US mil i tary assets in over seas areas that are engaged in rel a - tively rou tine, reg u lar, non-combat activ ities or functions.1 By this def i n ition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are engag ing in com bat (such as Oper a tion Endur ing Free dom) , or are involved in a one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging crisis situation), then they are not engag ing in pres ence activ ities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) over - seas may or may not be “engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “ doing pres enc e.” We have thus far defined presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence activities actually entail doing? Over seas mil i tary pres ence activ ities are generally viewed as a sub set of the overall class of activities that the US government uses in its efforts to pro mote impor tant military/security objec tives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not lim ited to US mil i tary efforts over seas to train for eign mil itaries; to improve inter-operability of US and friendly forces; to peace fully and vis i bly demon strate US com - mit ment and/or abil ity to defend US inter ests; to gain intel li gence and famil iar ity with a locale; to con duct peace keep ing activ i ties; and to posi tion rel e vant, capa ble US mil itary assets such that they are likely to be avail able sooner rather than later in case an evolving security operation or contingency should call for them.
35 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF -Turkey only has 90 TNW’s http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-status-of-us-nuclear-weapons-turkey, By Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke | 23 November 2009
Today, Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 gravity bombs. Fifty of these bombs are reportedly PDF assigned for delivery by U.S. pilots, and forty are assigned for delivery by the Turkish Air Force. However, no permanent nuclear-capable U.S. fighter wing is based at Incirlik, and the Turkish Air Force is reportedly PDF not certified for NATO nuclear missions, meaning nuclear-capable F-16s from other U.S. bases would need to be brought in if Turkey's bombs were ever needed.
-There are about 6,700 US troops in Turkey http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030314-troops01.htm , Fort Worth Star Telegram (Texas) March 14, 2003 TURKEY: About 5,000 U.S. and other military personnel, including about 1,700 Air Force troops stationed at Incirlik Air Base. Squadrons patrol no-fly zone of northern Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch.
B) VIOLATION;
The Aff only removes TNW’s which is less than 85%. With so many things defined as military presence only removing TNW’s isn’t even close to 85% it’s closer to 1%
C) OUR DEFENITION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BEST Precision – Our definition provides a clearer, more exact definition than the aff’s vague interpretation Reasonability – Definition provides a reasonable division of ground.
F) TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE Fairness - Non-topical plans attempt to change the rules by misinterpreting the resolution, which isn't fair. Ground - Non-topical plans stray outside the ground of the resolution lessening neg. ground Jurisdiction - The judge is offered two options - for and against the resolution. If the plan is outside of the jurisdiction of the resolution, the judge cannot cast a vote for the government Education - Running a non-topical case decreases education by seeking competitive gain over fair competition. If we don't talk about the issue the resolution dictates, that decreases education on the issue and leads to technical discussions (like this) that don't really increase education Apriori- topicality is the first argument you should consider in the round, at the point in which they are not topical you must vote neg right now.
36 SDI 2010 2AC Blocks TNWs AFF T- Presence = Military Bases
C) THE PLAN VIOLATES THE TERM “military presence”. A Topical Aff must decrease the number of bases in a topically designated country
Substantial is the essential part of a thing Dictionary.com 2010 Based on Random House Dictionary 2010, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Substantially 4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement.
Bases are essential part of US military presence Catherine Lutz, Anthropology Professor-Brown University, 2009, The Bases of Empire: the global struggle against U.S. military posts, ed. Catherine Lutz, p. 6
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S. military presence overseas.
B) VIOLATION;
The plan reduces TNW’s which doesn’t count as a military presence.
C) OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BEST 15. Topic Education- Our interpretation ensures the resolution and education. Debate helps you make good decisions, and our interpretation protects a vital distinction. Making us key to this education. 2. Ground- The affirmative destroys negative ground by running a nontopical case; they go outside the resolution which is negative ground and increases our research burden. 3 military presence you don’t think about TNW’s, you think about the bases
G) TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE 1. Education- We came to learn about military presence, allowing nontopical plans destroy all educational value. 2. Fairness- Allowing a nontopical case destroys fairness because we are not prepared to debate this argue. 3. Jurisdiction- it is outside the jurisdiction to vote on a non-topical case. 4. Apriori- Topicality must come before anything else when the judge is voting, there fore you can ignore everything else and vote the aff. Non topical right now.
37