Monday, November 29, 2010

A warning for everyone..

I know a lot of people like to grab the free backfiles off of forums and projects like Planet Debate. While there is nothing wrong with this, make sure you go back and read all the cards you find there in the original context of their articles. Planet Debate and other NFL and college forums do not have the same evidence standards as NCFCA or Stoa. They often combine paragraphs without using ellipses and cut out key context.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Epic Card

Basically, this card links success in Afghanistan to the long term ability of NATO to project power and be a credible national security instrument. Use this beauty to impact out an advantage or disadvantage about Russian help in Afghanistan. 

NATO success in Afghanistan is key to sustain the alliance
      Shea 7 (Jaime Shea, Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the Secretary General @ NATO, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 31(2), http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/31-2pdfs/Shea.pdf)IM
      Getting it right in Afghanistan is essential not only for NATO’s present but also for its future. Operations are driving NATO’s transformation by making both its strengths and its weaknesses much more visible. Five major lessons have come to light that NATO must integrate fully within its bureaucracy and working culture in the months ahead if it is to be truly fit for the purpose of becoming an expeditionary alliance. If NATO decides to issue a new Strategic Concept at its sixtieth anniversary summit in 2009, these five lessons would undoubtedly need to be the core of this document.   


Later on in the article:


NATO today is increasingly used by its members to organize military stabilization operations. Afghanistan and Kosovo will keep NATO countries occupied for some years yet. Success in both places will also largely determine NATO’s future credibility as an instrument of choice for han- dling important security challenges. Afghanistan and Kosovo, however, will not be NATO’s last operations. When we look at the international security climate today, one thing stands out: there is an increasing demand for international stabilization missions, both to resource the ones already underway and to be able to launch new ones.

Monday, November 22, 2010

A potential generic DA...

Before everyone from India year moans and writes this off, I had an idea for a generic DA that I wanted to share with you all. It involves the State Department's Trafficking In Person's (TIP) report. This is a ranking system, or watch list, for countries that have human trafficking problems. Right now Russia is a tier 2 country, which means they are in essence, a "flagged" country.

The DA would apply to cases that try to buddy up and increase economic cooperation/integration with Russia. It would basically look like this:

DA: Human Rights degradation

A) Link: Russia a tier 2 country
B) Brink 1: Russian HR are in crisis
C) Brink 2: Russia deserves tier 3
D) Impact: Tier 3 undermined (mixed message, hypocrisy, however you want to phrase it)

Basically, argue that Russia deserves to face economic penalties for its HR violations, but an aff ballot to further economic integration takes us the opposite direction. Vote neg on HR/dehumanization over currency, etc.

Also: Check it out, yo. 

This may be a crazy idea, but I kind of like it.

Leave me a rant in the comment section.

An intriguing development....

Russia shows willingness to collaborate on missile defense
REUTERS 10 Reuters News, November 10, 2010 “Russia warming to NATO missile defence plan - U.S.” http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52816220101110
 A U.S. official said on Wednesday Russia was warming to the idea of cooperation with NATO on a European missile defence system ahead of a summit next week expected to seal warmer relations between the Cold War rivals. Philip Gordon, U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, said that Russia was showing willingness to work with NATO on the system, aimed at countering ballistic threats from the Middle East, in particular Iran. Moscow has expressed concerns about how the system would affect its own missile deterrent, and whether it would have the capability to counter Russia's own missiles. However, last week Russia pledged to boost cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan and consider a joint missile defence shield, after a meeting between President Medvedev and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The pair met to iron out a new bilateral agreement to be signed at a summit of the 28-nation NATO alliance in Lisbon on Nov. 19-20 that Medvedev will attend. "On the whole they have welcomed it (a joint NATO missile defence system) ... and I think they've shown a willingness to work with us on this," Gordon told reporters at the U.S. embassy in London.”

Sunday, November 14, 2010

What we learned from the recent Washington Practice Tournament...

The Juggernaut Index never lies. 4 of the top 5 teams were running a designated Juggernaut case.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Juggernaut #2: Ratify START

Overview:
Mkay. I know what you are probably thinking. "Reduce our nukes? Oh NOES! The heritage foundation says we will get nuked." Well, believe it or not, we don't actually need enough nukes to destroy the world 50 times. START is a pwner. Deal with it, Ron Paul. 

Juggernaut Rankings:

  • Significance:9
  • Solvency:10
  • Judge Appeal:8
  • Topicality:10
  • Researchability: 10
  • In-Round Debate:10
  • Composite Ranking: 9.4

Premise:
Basically, the inherency foundation for an affirmative is that the international non-proliferation regime is in disarray. In order to restore the credibility and strength of non-proliferation efforts, the US and Russia need to take the lead. Solution? The START treaty that commits both the US and Russia to reduce their nuclear stockplies by about 30%, installs verification and tracking systems to secure the remaining nukes, and commits both parties to transparency measures. Russia and the US set the tone for controlling nukes, and everyone is safer and happier.

Significance:
You have access to 3 basic advantages: Nuclear terrorism, relations, and non proliferation.
  • Terror: Basically, terrorists are trying to steal nukes. START reduces the number of nukes, and therefore the risk of theft.
  • Relations: START is a complete 180 from the cold war posture. Instead of maintaining nukes so we can bomb each other, we reduce our nukes and are friends. D'aaaaaaw!
  • Non-proliferation: See summary. START restores credibility of international non-proliferation efforts.

Solvency Mechanisms:
Here's where people seem to hate START. Basically, the neg will come up and scream that Russia will cheat and/or take advantage of loopholes in the treaty. Few problems with these arguments.

A) Loopholes: The neg supposedly has a card which says that Russia will take advantage of a loophole in the way bombers are counted. Doesn't matter, because no one uses nuclear bombers anymore. It's like saying Russia could build billions of bi-plane fighters. Sure they could. It's just not very scary.
B) Cheating: I don't even know where to begin on this one. There is no proof that Russia will cheat, and even if they did, verification and inspections solve. Plus, Russian cheating wouldn't outweigh anything on earth, because they would still reduce nukes, just not by as much.

Topicality:
Treaty with Russia. Not that hard.

Possible DAs
Everyone worries about national security under START, specifically BMD and nuclear deterrent.

Missile Defense
Seems decent, except for the fact that the US can still build BMD, and Russia even said so. Most of the cards here are just fear cards being thrown up by the extremist conservatives. The Department of Defense isn't worried about it.

Nuclear deterrent
"OH NO! If you vote aff, we won't have enough nukes to defend ourselves!" Riiiiight, except for the fact that our nuclear arsenal would still be many times larger than anyone else's, and the only country that could match us on nukes is Russia, which... oh wait! Russia reduces their arsenal under START too. Boom.