The Instigator
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
ViatorVerum
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,441 times Debate No: 12310
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

Johnicle

Con

If you accept this debate you accept the following terms:

1. The Contender (Affirmative) picks a topic created within the last 5 years by either the National Forensic League or the Cross Examination Debate Association.

2. The debate will follow Policy Debate format.

3. All arguments do NOT require evidence. The burden of evidence is completely optional and should only be used for important points or points that are not common knowledge.

4. Round 1: Setup/1AC
Round 2: 1NC/2AC
Round 3: 2NC-1NR/1AR
Round 4: 2NR/2AR

5. The last 2 speeches for pro (Affirmative) have a 5,000 character limit. Whereas only the last speech for con (Negative) has a 5,000 character limit. The rest of the rounds can be maxed out

6. Topic, Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

I would like to wish my competitor luck, and I look forward to the debate!
ViatorVerum

Pro

TOPIC: Resolved: The United States government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one of more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

I will present my case as the thesis, taglines w/sources, and planks.

The thesis of this case is that the United States mission in Afghanistan is greatly impaired by the existence of United States Private Military Contractors, but has contracts with 90% of the PMCs within Afghanistan. Not only do these PMCs negatively affect the mission in Afghanistan, but also the safety of our soldiers and the security of our economy. It is of utmost important for the United States to stop hiring PMCs in Afghanistan therefore my partner and I affirm today�€™s resolution.

OBSERVATION 1: Significance/Harms

A. US hired PMCs in Afghanistan are ineffective and inefficient at accomplishing their contract�€™s goal and detrimental to other US entities in Afghanistan. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee �€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

B. PMCs in Afghanistan help fund the Taliban with US taxpayer dollars. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee �€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

C. PMCs abuse US capital, an activity that could drastically impair the US economy. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee �€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

D. PMCs in Afghanistan recklessly endanger the lives of innocent civilians and US military troops. Chaterjee 10-24-10 (http://www.alternet.org...)

E. The PMCs in Afghanistan differ from PMCs in other countries. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee �€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

OBSERVATION 2: Inherency

A. The United States government has not and likely won't for a long while consider the report the SASC brought to light. Feral Jundi 2010(Main Author of online magazine "Industry Talk", http://www.feraljundi.com...)

B. The United States overlooks the situation in Afghanistan. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th

C. The US currently holds contracts with approximately 23,400 PMCs in Afghanistan. July 2nd, 2010 (Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis)

PLAN

In order to solve for the previously mentioned harms, my partner and I present the following plan.
Plank 1: Void all contracts with PMCs within Afghanistan.
Plank 2: The enforcement will be the Department of Defense.
Plank 3: The affirmative reserves the right to legislative intent.

OBSERVATION 4: Solvency

A. Removing PMCs from within Afghanistan will solve the problems attributed with them. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

B. The United States Military can more effectively complete the Afghan mission than PMCs. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

OBSERVATION 5: Advantages

A. A removal of Afghan US PMCs will consequently result in a US economic stimulus. US Census Facts, 2010 [http://quickfacts.census.gov... ]

B. The removal of US PMCs in Afghanistan will create a safer environment in which US Armed forces can operate. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session)

C. The removal of PMCs allow for better relations with the Afghani government, and an overall quicker completion time of the US mission. July 2nd, 2010 (Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in summary, the mentioned private military contractors in Afghanistan are causing significant problems whilst still failing to do their job. We are therefore nulling their contracts, which will eliminate the problem at hand as shown in Solvency.

I only included the taglines b/c my opponent has said this doesn't need to be driven by evidence, but if he wants the context of the card all he needs do is ask. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Con

Feel free to use evidence whenever you want. There are some arguments, however, that an analytical will suffice.

It's 5 off. Some of the arguments will be applied to case later.

1st off is the ITS TOPICALITY

A. "its" definition.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
"belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified"

B. Interpretation - The Affirmative plan must own the military that is being reduced.

C. Violation - Private Military Contractors are simply contracted to do the United States work but are not specifically owned by them.

D. Standards

1. Limits - The topic is exploded beyond research ability. If everyone that aids the United States' international interests were considered part of their military, then the Affirmative could run and unreasonable multitude of plans. Every single ally the United States has in aiding them in any country would now become topical which extends the topic too far.

2. Bright line - The plan is either topical or not. At the point where the only way for the U.S. to get the military to do what it wants is through contracting, then it is clearly not 'its' military.

E. Topicality is a voting issue because to allow the Affirmative to run any case and get away with it is an unfair research burden for Negative.

2nd off is the PMC DISADVANTAGE

A. UNIQUENESS: PMC's are a necessity for solvency of all military policies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"observers of private military and security contractors acknowledge... that military dependence on... contractors is so heavy at this point that the military can't go to war without them... there is now one contractor for every deployed troop. In Iraq, the ratio will double to 2-to-1 as US forces withdraw."

B. LINK: PMC's are vital for military operations.
http://www.brookings.edu...
"There are some 180,000 private military contractors... The vast bulk of these contractors handle military support functions: building and operating military bases, maintaining and repairing military equipment and vehicles, and moving massive convoys of supplies that are... vital to the operations survival."

C. IMPACT: If PMC's are withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. military would be split causing massive instability and unnecessary death.

D. IMPACT: If PMC's are withdrawn, either there will not be enough ground forces to complete the mission, or the United States will have to devote more of their troops to replace the jobs of the PMC's. This is counterproductive to the overall goal of Afghan withdraw in the next couple of years and is clearly a poor policy option.

3rd off is the IRAN DISADVANTAGE

A. UNIQUENESS: Iran will proliferate within the year, creating the most probable scenario for Middle Eastern war, widespread proliferation, terrorist attacks and Israel first strikes.

B. LINK: US presence is key to containing a nuclear Iran.
http://www.aei.org...
"Should the Islamic Republic acquire nuclear weapons, it may become dangerously overconfident as it convinces itself that its conventional, irregular, or proxy forces can operate without fear of serious reprisal from the United States, Israel, or any other regional power. In order, therefore, to contain a nuclear Iran, the United States and its allies in the region will need to enhance their military capability to counter the likelihood of successful Iranian conventional action... If the Pentagon has pre-positioned enough equipment and munitions in the region, this might take three or four days; if not, it could take longer. If U.S. forces are to contain the Islamic Republic, they will require basing...in Afghanistan, Iraq...Without a sizeable regional presence, the Pentagon will not be able to maintain the predeployed resources and equipment necessary to contain Iran...Because containment is as much psychological as physical, basing will be its backbone."

C. IMPACT: Israeli first strike causes escalating regional war, devastating US presence in the Middle East and exacerbating instability.

D. IMPACT: Proliferation causes global nuclear war.

4th off is the REGULATE PMC'S COUNTERPLAN

A. PLAN-TEXT: The United States federal government should regulate private military contractors supported and directed by the United States government, forcing compliance with national and international laws and norms. The United States federal government should ensure sufficient oversight and supervision to ensure accountability.

B. COMPETITIVE: You can not end all PMC contracts and refocus their efforts in Afghanistan at the same time.

C. NOT TOPICAL: There is no substantial reduction of a U.S. Federal Government military of any kind.

D. NET-BENEFICIAL:

1. PMC's provide essential jobs that the regular military doesn't have time for.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...
"The contractors... do the work that makes the war possible, like serving food, driving trucks, constructing buildings, transporting fuel, and more."

2. PMC's do the dirty work with no dangerous political backlash.
http://www.brookings.edu...
"One side would discuss overall pay versus contracted pay -- ignoring the differences between sunk costs of training, who ends up paying benefits, etc., etc. Second, the use of private military contractors has never really been about financial cost savings. Rather, it's been about political cost savings. No one was able to point to a single decision to outsource some function to Blackwater that happened because of a cost differential analysis. Instead, each of these choices was made because a policymaker wanted to try to avoid spending political capital on an otherwise difficult decision, and a contractor was now there to enable this political cost avoidance."

3. Afghanistan is short on troops... Passing the counter-plan has the advantage of not putting the U.S. into a worse off position.
http://www.upi.com...
Even with additional U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, combat levels are inadequate to conduct operations in most key areas, a Pentagon report indicates. The congressionally mandated report released Wednesday said coalition forces decided to concentrate on 121 districts in Afghanistan, but have enough troops to operate in only 48 districts, Stars & Stripes reported.

5th off is the MONOPOLIZATION KRITIK

A. MONOPOLIZE DEFINITION: "to obtain exclusive possession of"
http://dictionary.reference.com...

B. LINK: Affirmative Plan refuses to allow Private Military Contractors to work within the legitimate market of Afghanistan... leaving the only other option to be a monopolized market of power. Power that can be placed in the wrong hands to perform the wrong acts. Having PMC's in the area ensures that a second entity creates a check and balance system of power to where immoral decisions can be refused.

C. IMPACT: PMC's can make a governmental body second guess their actions. If an order is handed down, and the PMC's refuse to do it, then the government can rethink it's decision. Such a process is necessary to prevent wars such as World War II with Nazi Germany. Finally, even if the government decides to move forward without the PMC's, they will do so weaker that expected making their initial goal more difficult.

D. IMPACT: Passing the Affirmative plan would allow for only one body of power to make all of the decisions unilaterally. Integration of a second point of view is critical in preventing unnecessary wars that could have been rationally resolved.

E. ALTERNATIVE: Reject the idea that one source of military power in the worldly hegemony is enough to make our world peaceful by rejecting the Affirmative
ViatorVerum

Pro

I'll be refuting my opponent's attacks going straight down the flow, starting with the a-priori topicality arguments.

TOPICALITY - ITS

A. Definition - I meet my opponent's definition.

B. Interpretation - My opponent says that the US government must 'own' the military, despite the fact that the definition provided is not completely restrictive to 'own'. The definition also calls for being 'associated with' meaning that representation is also a ground on which we can base the type of military presence. The PMCs, being hired by the US government, clearly represent the US government in that they are acting for the government and in its interests.

C. Counter-Standards

1. Fairness - To compete with my opponent's standard of limits, I offer fairness, meaning that it is clearly fair if it is within the domains of the resolution. The fact that my opponent made 5 attacks clearly shows that he is not too limited in the subject, and as for the ability of my opponent to research, it should be obvious that he had three days, after seeing the subject, to research. In finality, the fact that my opponent stated this could be completely based off no evidence shows that limits because of the ability to be researched should not stand.

2. Brightline - As I've shown, I'm obviously topical meaning that I am clearly on the topical side of the brightline.

D. Topicality is a valid voting issue, though it is unreasonable to run it on the grounds of limits due to the ease of research over a period of three days on the internet. Remember, the opponent is only limited by his laziness.

DISAD - PMC WITHDRAWAL

A. Uniqueness - I'd like to make a point to mention that my opponent's own evidence state that these PMCs have a deleterious effect on the US Military.

B. Link - This a point I'll break. My opponent's evidence is clearly from 2008, and if you'll refer to my Harms, you'll see that my evidence from 2010 clearly shows the PMCs specifically in Afghanistan to be a negative influence on not only the US Military, but the US's interests. This is an excerpt from the report: "The Committee's inquiry revealed squandered resources and dangerous failures in contractor performance, including untrained guards, insufficient and unserviceable weapons, unmanned posts, and other shortcoming that directly affect the safety of other US military personnel. And yet, US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Armed Contractor Oversight Directorate (ACOD) reported that, as of May 2010, they were aware of more than 26,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan. According to the ACOD, 90 percent of those personnel are working under either US government contracts or subcontracts." This clearly shows the troops in Afghanistan to be uniquely dangerous to US interests, and that they are in no way vital to military operations, and that they in fact push against US military operations.

C. Brink - Because the link was broken, this brink will not occur. The PMCs will actually allow the US Military to be able to MORE EFFECTIVELY complete their mission, giving more reason to believe my plan itself will be the only way to avoid the impact my opponent stated.

D. Impact - My opponent has presented an impact of not enough troops to fill in the PMCs positions. In reality, my evidence in my case pointedly shows that the PMCs don't do their jobs and makes the jobs of the US Military more difficult. Only through the removal of these PMCs can we avoid this impact, because the removal will actually result in more work getting done, as I've shown.

DISADVANTAGE - IRANIAN PROLIFERATION

A. Uniqueness - I'd like to simply not that my opponent's assertion that Iran will proliferate within the year is unfounded and we have no reason to assume it's likely. This, however, is not my refutation.

B. Link - My opponent states that a reduction in PMCs will cause a lack of troops leading to a loss of control of the Islamic Republic. This attack obviously disregarded my specific harms, the ones that stated the specific PMCs in Afghanistan fail to do their jobs. This failure to do jobs also refers to failure to protect, meaning their only necessity in such a revolution would not be completed. The fact that they directly endanger US Military troops also shows that they would be a force against the US rather than with it. The only logical solution would be to remove the PMCs. Don't forget that US Military will still remain and that PMCs in Iran itself will still be present.

C. Impact - If such a revolution were to happen (remember that it's an unfounded assertion), then the PMCs in Afghanistan shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way. If this was to happen, our only hope of stopping the result would be an effort made without the resistant force of the Afghan PMCs.

D. Impact - Once again, consider the turned DA. Only through my plan can we hope to avoid this most terrible impact.

COUNTERPLAN

A. Plan-text - Regulation? By who? How much will it cost to get this regulation? What is considered regulation? How much oversight is necessary to insure the obedience of these PMCs? These are the questions that can neither be known nor answered. We see that the presence of the US Military itself can't stop these PMCs from doing their 'dirty deeds' and there's no reason to assume that government official presence will in any way stop these disobediences. In fact, the assertion is unfounded and completely ridiculous. Evidence will certainly be needed for such an outrageous claim.

D. Net-beneficial

1. PMCs provide essential jobs that the regular military doesn't have time for.

This would be an interesting point if it actually applied to the troops in Afghanistan. The SASC report showed that, as cited earlier, a majority of the PMCs actually failed to report to post, do their job, and were mostly untrained for the sometimes simple jobs they were assigned. The fact is that the Afghani PMCs simply don't do their job and shouldn't be allowed to continue existence. Harms E specifically shows that the Afghan PMCs are different and obviously don't apply to my opponent's evidence which refers to 'normal' PMCs.

2. PMCs do the dirty work with no dangerous political backlash.

This is an almost moot point in itself. When the Blackwater incident itself occurred, both Blackwater and the Federal Government were blamed, and rightly so because it was both of their faults. My opponent is basically saying that when the PMCs make mistakes, we can use them as a scapegoat. The past has shown that doesn't work anyway, and even so that goes against American ideals of justice and honesty. 'Dirty work' that's wrong shouldn't be done at all. The use of them as a scapegoat certainly doesn't outweigh my advantages and aren't worth the continued existence of my harms, or that impacts that will happen of the turned DAs.

3. Afghanistan running low on troops.

This point is one of ignorance. The continued existence of PMCs will result in a higher troops count, but that's Argumentum Ad Numerum (the logical fallacy in which it states just because something has higher [or lower] numbers it is better [or worse]. I've specifically shown these Afghan PMCs to be bad and my opponent has failed to provide any evidence or valid logic as to why the opposite is true. There will be more troops, but this is worse because the PMCs actually push against the US Military. Seeing as the PMCs out number the US Military, this will result in us working backwards, something that is most certainly not a benefit.

MONOPOLIZATION KRITIK

For space's sake, I'll merely summarize a basic refutation.

My opponent is stating that the PMCs are a necessary opposing force that works against the military and US government, creating a system that limits the government's decisions. This system of checks an balances is already present within our government's decisions (House, Senate, President) , leaving another unnecessary.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Con

NEG BLOCK! (after this round, only 5,000 characters per 'speech')

TOPICALITY - ITS

A/B. My opponent does not meet the definition because PMC's are not associated with the USFG. Association between one another can not be created because of contracting. He argues that PMC's represent the US, but he never argues that the contracts that they sign establish an association.

C1. Turn the fairness standard because it is irrelevant how much time I have to research due to the fact that I instigated a debate and it is UNFAIR to argue outside of the topic I have established.

PMC DISADVANTAGE

A. Uniqueness- My opponent makes no attack on uniqueness. My evidence showed that PMC's are essential to military policies. My evidence does also show that PMC's have some "deleterious", but at the point where he concedes that PMC's are essential for military operations and his plan offers no solvency to this point, that explicitly triggers the link. Not to mention that military policies far outweigh the risk of impact verses the minute PMC harm.

B. Link: READ HIS QUOTE... It says nothing about the PMC's being unnecessary. There is a reason that the US uses them in EVERY war and that is because they are essential to winning the war. Cross-apply my initial brookings evidence that states the multiple tasks that PMC's do. They are not necessarily the most efficient, but they get the job done that the highly trained US military doesn't have time for.

C. Impact: This argument fails for 2 reason. 1) He says that the brink fails because the link fell just making this an extension of the link debate making this point moot. 2) The debate is not about how effective we can be on a certain mission but rather how efficient we can be in the ENTIRE WAR. Therefore, my opponent wins that he can more effectively win a 1 battle situation but he can not solve better for a 100 battle war.

D. Impact: 1) My evidence specifies that we "can't go to war without them"... No where does my opponents evidence say that PMC's are so counterproductive that this idea is untrue. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has specified subjective examples and applied them objectively. The fact is that if we pull out PMC's, we might as well pull out the entire army because the stability of Afghanistan would be destroyed and 8 years of war would be put to waste as the Taliban re-takes control of their former home.

IRAN DISADVANTAGE

Additional Evidence:

A. Uniqueness- Iran will proliferate within the year, creating the most probable scenario for Middle Eastern war, widespread proliferation, terrorist attacks and Israel first strikes.
Charles S. Robb, former Democratic senator from Virginia, Charles Wald, retired general and air commander

"As Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium grows... current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States... a nuclear weapons-capable Iran could be contained. Instead, it would set off a proliferation cascade across the Middle East, and Iran would gain the ability to transfer nuclear materials to its terrorist allies... An Iran emboldened by nuclear weapons clearly might overstep its boundaries, pulling the Middle East and the United States into a treacherous conflict. An even more likely scenario, however, is that Israel would first attack Iranian nuclear facilities, triggering retaliatory strikes by Iran and its terrorist proxies."

C. Impact- Without the capability to contain Iran, nuclear war would break out.
http://coteret.com...

"The war could be long,"... "its length could be measured in years"... "(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire... which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support... will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah... If the current tension between Turkey and Israel rises, Turkey may also permit, or turn a blind eye to, arms shipments and Iranian volunteers that will pass to Syria through its territory and airspace. Israel will find it very difficult, politically and militarily, to intercept the passage of forces through Iraq or Turkey. The participation of Iranian forces will make it very difficult for the IDF to occupy areas from which rockets are being fired. "Along with these steps, Iran may launch a massive terror campaign against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad... The Iranians will fire missiles at population centers in Israel, and will rebuild the nuclear facilities that were bombed, in such a way that will make it very difficult to bomb them again.... Half a million dead, a million wounded, two million refugees and displaced persons, economic damage estimated by the Iranian government at about $1-trillion—more than twice the value of all Iranian oil production in 70 years of pumping oil... "The ramifications are clear and harsh."

D. Impact- Un-contained Iranian nuclear proliferation alone causes nuclear war.
Proliferation causes global nuclear war.
Utgoff 02 (Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses., Survival, vol. 44, no. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 85–102 "Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions")

"Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible."

E. Link: US Military presence in Afghanistan is key to containing a nuclear Iran.
http://www.irantracker.org...

"While current deployments are placing a strain on U.S. military assets, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan offers distinct advantages in any possible confrontation with Iran.The United States can bring in troops and materiel to the region under the cover of the... Afghanistan conflicts, thus maintaining a degree of strategic and tactical surprise. The United States can also more easily insert Special Forces and intelligence personnel into Iran and protect key assets of our regional allies... Such plans and deployments would also be part of an effort to demonstrate to the Islamic Republic that it would lose more than it would gain by becoming nuclear weapons-capable."

GROUP DA ATTACKS: The only other assertion that my evidence does not answer is that PMC's will stand in the way.

1) Even poor troops can help containment. If we made it clear that our presence is key to saving the world, any humans natural instinct will take over to defend us.

2) Cross apply my evidence that specifies PMC's and their important jobs.

COUNTERPLAN

A. All of those questions he asserted is answered in the first 5 words (the USFG). Further specification would link to a OSPEC argument that I did not want to deal with, my plan text is legitimate.

D. Net-beneficial

Group: First I'd like to point out that he does not provide for the essential jobs that they provide. Nor does he realize that subjective examples do not outweigh my objective example. Finally my plan text solves for all of the problems that he cites. LET'S MAKE THE MOST OF THESE PMC's. I ONLY ACCEPT YOUR INHERENCY THAT INHERENCY THAT THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS, BUT PULLING THEM OUT ONLY MAKES THE MATTER WORSE. MY COUNTERPLAN SOLVES THE INHERENCY AS WELL AS BOTH DISADVANTAGES.

MONOPOLY KRITIK

The system is not in place everywhere. Not to mention that corrupt decisions can still be made, and that it's a third party that is essential for a
ViatorVerum

Pro

ViatorVerum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Con

Probably the worst possible round he could have forfeited...

Extend all of my arguments. Judges, keep in mind 3 things:

1) No new arguments in his next speech.

2) I should have had an opportunity to respond to arguments he may decide to make in his next speech. This is especially true with the Iran Disadvantage since I read new evidence in the block.

3) In policy debate, you are stuck with your 1AR arguments in the 2AR. He gives none, so he drops each of my off case arguments. Each of them present an independent reason to vote negative and have literally no attacks against them.

Either way, thanks for what debate we did get accomplished.
ViatorVerum

Pro

ViatorVerum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
None of the block was answered. I vote NEG on all off case, particularly the T and K prove that the AFF plan should not be passed in this realm of debate. The DA's/CP also outweigh case. Finally, CON round 4 summarizes the abuse of PRO. 4 distinct reasons to vote NEG/CON.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
"Remember, the opponent is only limited by his laziness."

lol I should just drop everything and run a mean-ness K
Posted by ViatorVerum 6 years ago
ViatorVerum
To clarify, our government already has a system of checks and balances, meaning we don't need an extra one on the war front that will simply complicate matters. Not to mention that the PMCs act in their own interests anyway, interests often not the same as the interests of Americans and the American government. The Kritik is the equivalent of trying to justify the existence of terrorists, simply because the terrorists push against the US Government.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
is it cool if i just run a T on every word? lol jk
Posted by ViatorVerum 6 years ago
ViatorVerum
Sorry for the delay. I'm trying to get hold of my case.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
@governments_kill: contact me in 2 weeks when I don't have 2 debates actively going. I will be interested in debating that with you some time soon.

@cody_franklin: yeah I forgot to read what I wrote when I re-posted the challenge... notice the 5 month old comments.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"1. The Contender (Affirmative) picks a topic created within the last 5 years by either the National Forensic League or the Cross Examination Debate Association."

"6. Topic, Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey."

Uhh, what?
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
I'll debate you if we an use the 03/04 topic. Sorry i'm kinda old. I completely remember my aff but I won't use cites.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
If anyone wants to go with full out evidence PM me and I will probably take this down and specifically challenge you.
Posted by Baseballer2007 7 years ago
Baseballer2007
I really want to debate my aff but i dont wanna put it out there just yet. Maybe i can debate it later on
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is off topic. losing arguments. Pro forfeited two rounds, losing conduct.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleViatorVerumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70