The Instigator
PolDebat101
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,336 times Debate No: 15043
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

PolDebat101

Pro

Plan:The United States Federal Government should initiate a phased withdrawal of the United States Forces of Korea
**The United States Forces of Korea refers to the ground, air and naval divisions of the United States Armed Forces stationed in Korea. There are about 30,000 U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula.

Major components of the force include the U.S. Eighth Army, the Seventh Air Force and US Naval Forces Korea.

Terms
DPRK- Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea)
ROK- Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Case: North Korea
a. Regime is on brink of collapse proven by failing economy and the risk of leadership transition
b. This will open up multiple scenario's for war and/or extinction
- Collapse risks loose fissile material and uncontrolled DPRK nukes
- Civil war between competing factions
-Countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, and the US will all try to stabilize region, this causes superpower confrontation
-DPRK could go out by sending nukes everywhere (When Kim Jong-il took power, NK became violent, it can on be worse this time

Solvency:
Troop withdrawal is key – its the necessary precondition to get China on board for Korean reunification, peaceful leadership transition, and denuclearization- prevents collapse
Nguyen ‘9 (Peter Van Nguyen is a freelance writer based in Sydney, Australia. His articles have been published in OpEdnews, Asia Times Online and Foreign Policy Journal, October 13 2009)

The United States and South Korea recently agreed on a contingency plan in case the North Korean government collapses. The plan includes joint military operations to control the influx of refugees and to secure the North's nuclear weapons. It also outlines the reunification of the two Koreas under a liberal and democratic leadership, with the cooperation of China. The United States believes that if the North collapsed, China would have to back reunification to demonstrate that it is a responsible player in regional cooperation. But in order to get the Chinese to endorse the plan, the United States would have to give up its strategic military bases in South Korea and order a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. Both Koreas have been constantly eyed by foreigners due to their geostrategic value in Northeast Asia. For China, Japan and the United States, the Koreas have provided a buffer zone for more than half a century since the end of the Korean War. The Korean peninsula is also seen as a predetermined battlefield if war breaks out between China, the United States and Japan. This would leave the warring states relatively untouched, as the three nations could avoid hitting each other's territories, which would escalate the conflict and make it difficult for all parties to disengage for fear of losing face. But both Koreas would have to face the brunt of a full-scale war. For China, protecting North Korea means keeping the United States and its allies from encroaching on its border. China would rather maintain the status quo than accept a reunified Korea under South Korean administration. Therefore, China will do its best to stabilize North Korea and rebuild its political structure in line with Chinese interests. China might be forced to accept a reunified Korea if it wants to maintain an international image as a peace-promoting country. However, unless it gets some kind of security guarantee without losing the strategic balance in the region, there is little incentive for it to allow reunification to take place unchallenged. Since the end of the Korean War the United States has maintained a large military contingent in South Korea to deter an invasion attempt by the North. The U.S. military presence keeps China's ambitions in check and in the bargain offers Japan some security, as the Japanese fear reprisals from the Chinese for atrocities committed during World War II. Besides, China's growing economic and military clout has increased the necessity for a military presence in South Korea. However, U.S. military bases in South Korea could pose the greatest obstacle to a peaceful reunification of the Koreas. Even a unified Korea might not want the U.S. military, as reunification would make the objective of providing deterrence against the North redundant. A U.S. military base in a united Korea would only strain ties with China, as it would be difficult to explain why it was required if the North Korean threat no longer exists. Also, millions of North Koreans have a deeply embedded resentment against the United States and are highly suspicious of its geopolitical moves in the region. Many believe that the South Korean government is a puppet of the United States. Stationing troops in Korea after reunification would only reinforce this belief. This would create a deep rift within the Koreas and threaten to derail the reunification process. The complete withdrawal of all U.S. military bases and personnel from the Korean peninsula should follow after a timetable has been set, allowing the new Korea to handle its own security. The question is, will the United States pull out all its troops in order to allow the peaceful reunification of the Koreas? The United States has been dreading a scenario in which its military bases in South Korea could come under threat. The United States may not withdraw its troops, as that would leave a strategic vacuum. It would risk losing influence over Korea to China, whose economy is touted to race ahead of that of the United States. Although complete U.S. withdrawal would be ideal, an alternative would be to allow China to set up bases in the northern part of Korea, similar to Kyrgyzstan allowing Russia and China to set up bases to ease their concerns over the U.S. military presence. This would have its challenges, however, and might increase the chances of military confrontation. But regardless of the implications and consequences, the United States will hesitate to remove its bases. China would probably ask for a U.S. troop withdrawal as a precondition to the reunification of the two Korea's under a liberal and democratic government.
boredinclass

Con

3 off, 1on
t-prescence
A. Interpretation - Presence is limited to troops.
The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2001, Oxford Reference Online
presence n.a group of people, especially soldiers or police, stationed in a particular place: maintain a presence in the region.

B. Violation – the aff changes military doctrine or weapons policy – it does not remove troops from _Turkey_

C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness and educational clash

- Key to limits – Expanding the topic to include both troops, missions, and weapons leads to infinite small affs – this destroys negative generic and specific ground, which is key to fairness

- Key to predictability – Limiting the topic to troops allows viable affs within each topic country but still guarantees negative ability to predict affirmatives – this is key to research and clash – which are key to education

Onto latin drug cp

Observation 1- Inherency
The drug problem is getting worse. The current interference is getting worse. We desperately need a new policy- National Coalition for Effective Drug Policies - 07
Observation 2- Drugs
Latin America is currently shipping billions of dollars of drugs to the U.S. We need to stop the flow.- drug policy.org 10
Observation 3-Crime
Many of the crime in the U.s. Revolves around drugs. Office of National drug Policies- 08
Observation 4- Prisons
Drugs contribute to prison overcrowding and the increase in the number of prisons nation-wide. Alliance of anti-drug policies-10
Observation 5- HIV/AIDS
HIV is directly spread through the use of drugs. We can significantly reduce it- National Institute on drug abuse-10
Observation 6- poverty
Drugs uniquely impact persons in poverty-Gtz 02
Thus the counterplan- the United States Federal Government (should initiate a phased withdrawal of the United States Forces of Korea) and relocate all resources to Latin America.

Onto SKFTA
1) SKFTA Passing- Obama is pushing for it
The Chosun Ilbo, 7/01/10
2) Obama's pol cap is key
Teresa Galli, 7/21/10
5) Ratification of the South Korea FTA is key to check North Korean proliferation.
Cooper and Manyin '07
Link – South Korea
Obama recently committed to South Korea – regardless of outcome, the plan is perceived as weakness
Gene Healy 10

Onto oncase
Apparently the Aff is unaware that when the U.S. tried to pull out a few weeks ago they failed
1. Military presence provides the deterrence which prevents a North Korean invasion
Kang 03
2. There's no impact – the likelihood of nuclear war extremely low
Korea Times 09
3. Reduction of troops will lead to an invasion, empirically proven
Nam, 2006
US troops vital to deterring a North Korean invasion-Turns the Aff
Kim, 2004
Debate Round No. 1
PolDebat101

Pro

On all arguments, no evidence,(only author/year) i assume they are analytics
Topicality-
1. We meet, we reduce the USFK which is all troops
2. The resolution says nothing about turkey, it says the USFG should withdraw the USFK which is in South Korea, not turkey
3. There is literally no abuse here

CP
Perm do the CP, it's plan plus. You are literally doing the same thign as my plan except and addition on the end. No reason We cant do both in the same world. It's not mutually exclusive, we can withdraw then move to Latin America No difference and I access the same solvency.

SKFTA
1. Korean Democratic Party opposes
China Post 2/15 (2/15/11, " South Korea parliament set to end FTA legal gridlock ", http://www.chinapost.com.tw...)

The Democrats have also indicated that they will fight to block a free trade deal signed with the U.S. after the two countries agreed to a revision to reflect U.S. Congress and industry concerns about a large imbalance in auto trade. "Our position is that the government agreed to a revision to the FTA which is unfair and humiliating and we're not going to respond to any discussions about that," Democratic Party spokesman Cho Young-teck said. U.S. Congress has also yet to pass the bill to approve the trade pact with South Korea that the two sides reworked in December and is expected to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.

2. Not at the top of the South Korean docket
Sun-ah 2/9 (Shim, "Seoul to prioritize ratification of South Korea-EU FTA", http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr... 000AEN20110209009700315F.HTML)

The South Korean government and the ruling party on Wednesday decided to prioritize the nation's free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union (EU) over a free trade deal with the United States in getting local parliamentary ratification, party officials said.

3. I solve for NK prolif through the Case. China will denuclearize...thats our Nguyen 9 evidence.
4. Our evidence is far more recent. Your evidence is WAAy to old to prove anything

CASE/Invasion DA

No evidence that they failed, and that doesnt mean anything. Thats exactly why we need my plan. No barrier plus in debate the aff can claim fiat.

On their deterance argument, the North literally attacked in November, no impact. This also proves our deterance is failig anyways
North Korea will never invade – they aren't stupid
Snyder 7 (Joshua, Professor – Pohang University of Science and Technology, "America's Entangling East Asian Alliances", 10-17, http://www.lewrockwell.com...)

It could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South in order to cement his place in power, after which ruling over a reunified Korea with all the South's resources in his control. But he is no moron, and realizes that there is no Soviet Bloc to support him or even trade with him after such an invasion. An invasion would simply make him the leader of a larger, war-devastated, and even more isolated pariah state. Kim Jong-il has witnessed first-hand the market successes of China and his children have been educated abroad, in Switzerland. While he has a genius for brinkmanship, he realizes that further isolation will only weaken his hold on power, which is why he has been scurrying to further economic cooperation with the South. And even if this North-South cooperation were but a ruse, South Korea has the means to protect itself; its high-tech juggernaut economy is the world's twelfth largest and is forty times larger than that of the North.

Also, my plan solves this through collapse. China will denuclearize NK, that was the Nguyen 9 evidence.

3.Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops
Alagappa 2009 – distinguished senior scholar at East-West Center (Muthiah, Global Asia, "nuclear weapons reinforce stability and security in 21st century Asia." Google scholar)
For non-nuclear weapon states like Japan and South Korea, the U.S. extended deterrence commitments have been a significant factor in assuaging their security vulnerabilities in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test. Both countries insisted on reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment, and Japan is exploring measures to increase the credibility of that commitment. In reassuring Japan, the U.S. commitment is a significant factor along with others in forestalling exploration of an independent nuclear option by that country. The U.S. commitment enables South Korea to maintain a nonnuclear posture, provides time to build a self-reliant defense capability, and is a fallback in dealing with a nucleararmed North Korea.
Regime Collapse causes loss of command and control- causes conflict and leads to great power entanglement
Dr. Patrick Cronin CNAS Autho ,12/21/2010 (CNN, "Paths to War On Korean Peninsula". http://www.cnas.org...)
War could also be catalyzed by sudden regime change or collapse in North Korea. The resulting uncertainty and potential loss of command and control, including over the North's nuclear weapons, might well find China, Russia, and the United States in conflict. One reason why this sudden change or collapse scenario is so dangerous is that different countries might perceive their overriding interests very differently in the heat of a crisis. Most importantly, for South Korea, it may appear that rather than achieving reunification either by the soft landing of gradual absorption or the hard landing of North Korea's political failure, China's growing influence over the North could be leading to the permanent division of the Peninsula.

Superpower confrontation risks extinction
Nye ‘91
(Joseph-, Dean of Kennedy School of Gov. @ Harvard, Bound to Lead, P. 17)

Perceptions of change in the relative power of nations are of critical importance to understanding the relationship between decline and war. One of the oldest generalizations about international politics attributes the onset of major wars to shifts in power among the leading nations. Thus Thucydides accounted for the onset of the Peloponnesian War which destroyed the power of ancient Athens. The history of the interstate system since 1500 is punctuated by severe wars in which one country struggled to surpass another as the leading state. If, as Robert Gilpin argues, "international politics has not changed fundamentally over the millennia," the implications for the future are bleak .45 And if fears about shifting power precipitate a major war in a world with 50,000 nuclear weapons, history as we know it may end.


Independently, violent regime collapse risks nuclear strike and loose fissile material
International Crisis Group 2009
(18 June, "NORTH KOREA'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS", Asia Report No. 167,:www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/167-north-koreas-chemical-and-biological-weaponsprograms.aspx+north+korea's+chemical+and+biological-weapons+program+international+crisis+group&cd =1 &hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

In a struggle for power or a coup d'�tat, the use or transfer of North Korean WMD would be unlikely but cannot be ruled out. In the case of state collapse, WMD and related materials would have to be secured as quickly as possible. This would require considerable planning and resources, but current international mechanisms would probably be inadequate in a sudden crisis. Diplomatic efforts should focus on the nuclear issue now, but preliminary efforts should also be made to address Pyongyang's chemical weapons and possible biological weapons. Understand- ing the motivations of North Korean leaders is essen- tial to structuring a diplomatic solution for the elimi- nation of their WMD, and if diplomacy fails, a clear assessment of capabilities and intentions will be im- perative to counter the threats. The proliferation of North Korean WMD materials or technology would endanger global security and non- proliferation regimes. A
boredinclass

Con

Kick T

Cp- On the perm, Perm severance- You can't do both the cp and the plan. To do the cp makes the Aff extra-topical, extra topicality destroys neg ground and not only is against the rues, but makes the aff a moving target. This destroys clash and makes debate unfair.

Skfta- Their no link card is a lie, recently he Parliament of Britain passed their own form of SKFTA two days after your evidence, obviously they are not accredited http://www.europarl.europa.eu...

On to oncase

>>>On their deterance argument, the North literally attacked in November, no impact.
-aff basically concdedes that there is no impact from an nk attack. He destroys his own case.

>>>could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South i
-Kim jong il is out an his son Kim Jong-Un is now in power this argument is non-unique

And his entire paragraph basically concedes that there are no problems between north and south, so he has to either concede that the south and north will attack, this takes out his economic co-operation argument or he states that they have co-operation and therefore deterence is working. neg can run multiple worlds, aff cannot without concededing that their case does not wok

>Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops
Obviously not if they attacked us

>Nye 91
Super powers have confronted before in korea and vietnam. this argument has no uniqueness

No internal link, he never states how superpowers will fight if we stay in Nk

Also all his advantages are historically disproven, we've been there for over 50 years don't you think something would have happened

On the cp

Never answers advantages. Our impacts are the most real world. Poverty, drug tafficking, HiV AiDs crime are happening now, prefer the cp and I urge you to vote neg
Debate Round No. 2
PolDebat101

Pro

CP- Not severance, theres no part of my plan that im severing out of. Secondly, im not extra topical, the resolution calls for a plan in which after it is carried out there will no longer be troops in south korea and thats presicely what my plan and perm do. The CP is plan plus
Plan plus CPs are a voter.
A. Not predictable- they can literally do the plan and anything else, then claim a net benefit off of it.
B. Moots the 1ac- Doesn't allow the aff to defend their plan because it's already part of the CP.'
C. Destroys plan focus-skirts around discussing around the merits of the plan with technicalities and silliness
D. They still get pics and agent cps-we give them plenty of ground
E. Even if we do limit your ground, we only limit out abusive and overly generic cps based off implementation or technicalities

SKFTA
Who cares if britain passed an FTA, my argument is that US and SK wont pass FTA, they dropped our Non unique and the fact that my plan solves for your impact. Also Fiat garentees that legical policy makers could pass both in the same world.

Case
-aff basically concdedes that there is no impact from an nk attack. He destroys his own case.
My case is not at all based on a North Korean attack, its a collapse of the Regime that will cause
a. Superpower confrontation
b.Civil War
c. Loose Fissile Material. Extend my ICG9 card that Regime Collapse of Nk will risk loose fissile material that could be stolen or detonated. This leads to Miscalculation and Extinction-
SID-AHMED 04
(Mohamed, internationally renowned 4reporter and columnist in Al Ahram, "Extinction!" Al-Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg...)

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

>>>could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South i
-Kim jong il is out an his son Kim Jong-Un is now in power this argument is non-unique

Im not saying that KJi is going to launch an attack. read the rest of the card it says they wont. And Kim Jong il is still in power, he just named his predessesor.(SP?)

"And his entire paragraph basically concedes that there are no problems between north and south, so he has to either concede that the south and north will attack, this takes out his economic co-operation argument or he states that they have co-operation and therefore deterence is working. neg can run multiple worlds, aff cannot without concededing that their case does not wok"

Once again none of my case says north will attack south. Its regime collapse. I dont advocate problems in my advantage.

>Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops
Obviously not if they attacked us.

They attacked when our troops were there. Basically hes conceding that all of our deterance is failing by saying this. This proves that there is no impact.

The US will provoke North Korea into war—South Korea will not
BANDOW 2003 (Doug, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea, "Cutting the Tripwire: It's time to get out of Korea," Reason Magazine, July 2003, http://reason.com...) Calum

Placing even greater pressure on this unequal arrangement is disagreement about proper policy toward North Korea. Some 24 million people, roughly half of South Korea's population, live in the Seoul-Inchon metropolitan region. Yet Seoul sits barely 25 miles from the border, vulnerable to artillery and Scud missile attack. Thus, the costs of mishandling the North would be horrific for the South. As President Roh has said, war "is such a catastrophic result that I cannot even imagine. We have to handle the North-South relations in such a way that we do not have to face such a situation."
Washington, by contrast, has almost casually considered plunging the peninsula into war. Former President Bill Clinton admits that his administration prepared for a military strike against the North during the first nuclear crisis, without consulting the South. President Roh understandably complained. "We almost went to the brink of war in 1993 with North Korea," he later said, "and at the time we didn't even know it."
Upon what can Seoul rely to avoid a new conflict? There are reports that President Bush rejected a military course after then-President Kim Dae-jung personally described the carnage of the Korean War. Yet Bush explicitly refuses to rule out any option. Secretary Rumsfeld has called the Kim Jong-il government a "terrorist regime," offering an obvious justification for action. And it is hard to find anyone who speaks with administration officials off the record who believes their publicly pacific intentions.
Indeed, some hawks flaunt their lack of concern for Seoul's views. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opines that "while they may risk their populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people. And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism. We would prefer the company of North Korea's neighbors, but we will make do without it if we must." Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy hits a similar note: "The desire of dangerous nations' neighbors to accommodate, rather than confront, them is understandable. But it should not be determinative of U.S. policy. Such pleading today from South Korea and Japan is reminiscent of the Cold War advocacy for d�tente by leftists in the West German government." Apparently, America's allies should gaily commit suicide at Washington's command.

>Nye 91
Super powers have confronted before in korea and vietnam. this argument has no uniqueness

Extend our Cronin 12-21 evidence which says that countries like Russia, China and the US will confront. This is different from Vietnam.

No internal link, he never states how superpowers will fight if we stay in Nk

Our Nye 91 says that it is a nuclear war which leads to extinction

Also all his advantages are historically disproven, we've been there for over 50 years don't you think something would have happened

No the regime hasnt been in jeapordy in the past 50 years. Now is the time

North Korea is in Dire Political and Economic Turmoil and Kim Jong Il righn is coming to an end.
Lee, 5/27
[Jean H. Lee, Associated press Writer, "Cheonan attack may be tied to North Korean Succession"; Associated Press; May 27, 2010; http://www.csmonitor.com...]
..the nation is in turmoil, struggling to build its shattered economy and to feed its people...rising, and the encroachment of the outside world, through videos and films smuggled from China,...Kim Jong Il, now 68, is ailing...
the persistent paralysis that left him ..limp

"Never answers advantages. Our impacts are the most real world. Poverty, drug tafficking, HiV AiDs crime are happening now, prefer the cp and I urge you to vote neg"
Doesnt matter if the perm solve
He has not answered case
boredinclass

Con

Cx:When was the last time a regime collapsed and your impacts happened?
The answer will be in my next speech

Cp- Their theory is flawed, Like I said it's against the rules to be extra-topical
1.PICs Good
First- offense:
1.Makes the aff defend the entire plan- causes better plan righting and in depth debate

2.Key to neg ground and flex- important on aff leaning topics- affs can be bidirectional and list topics make neg ground stale- also, aff gets first and last speech

3.PICs check extra-topical plan planks

4.Education- it�€™s the most real world and germane to the topic

5.Vital to search for best policy option

Second- Defense
1.Reject the arg not the team- that�€™s our world view on all theory questions

2.Nearly inevitable- almost all CPs are PICs

3.Net benefits check abuse

4.Aff chooses the plan- proves not infinitely regressive

Birtain prooves that sk is willing to have a free trade agreement

Onto Oncase
A. Hisrtorically disproven, no superpowers have attacked upon collapse. too involved in their own issues
B. we answered that nk will go to war

On bandow 03, extend no invasion arguments

>Cronin 12-21
- Like I said there is no proof that superpowers will directly confront now, because they have not in the past

Extend all attack on oncase from the 1NC.
I severed the perm, so there is no advantage answers
Debate Round No. 3
PolDebat101

Pro

CX: Never, obviously North Korea has never collapse and no country with nuclear weapons and that is near so many powerhouse countries. Other collapse dont matter because or evidence is specific to North Korea.

CP
"Their theory is flawed, Like I said it's against the rules to be extra-topical"
In no way am i extra topical, im still withdrawing. Whether the troops go to the US or LAtin America it doesnt matter. He has given no reasons why i am extra topical dont let him bring it back up again.

" PICS GOOD"
Your counterplan isnt a PIC in ANY way. PICS EXCLUDE part of the Aff. You literally do my plan the something else. None of your offense/defense applies because its not a PIC. also i read Plan-Plus bad. You did not respond to this. It was a voter so that means its an automatic voter for the Aff. Extend all Plan Plus bad, they dropped it.

Extend my Perm THEY DROPPED IT. I am not extra topical, and perm solves all of their advantages.

SKFTA
First of all they dropped ALL of my non unique, no link and no impact defense which is all much more recent than the evidence in their first speech. They also dropped the fact that i solve for Prolif through the case flow.
Also, SKFAT has absolutlely NOTHING to do with Britain. SKFTA is between South Korea and the US. Britain isnt involved in any way.

A. Hisrtorically disproven, no superpowers have attacked upon collapse. too involved in their own issues
-this is a horrible argument, North Korea has never collapsed before. Also it is similar to what happened in rome. They collapsed and the barbarians invaded. They only difference is that back then their werent nuclear weapons that could be stolen or used.

"B. we answered that nk will go to war/On bandow 03, extend no invasion arguments"

-Once again our case has nothing to do with Nk going to war. Extend all of my arguments that SK can win war with NK and other arguments thay state US presence is only driving the conflict. Not to mention that the Nuclear umbrella deters NK. He dropped all of this in his last speech dont let him bring it up again.

">Cronin 12-21
- Like I said there is no proof that superpowers will directly confront now, because they have not in the past"
Once again the North Hasnt collapsed in the past. this takes out this entire argument. Extend Cronin 12-21 and Nye 91 which is the Biggest IMPACT in this debate. Its a Nuclear War between Russia, China and the US and Nye indicates that this will lead to extinction.

He dropped our other internal link which is that the North has Nuke weapons and if it collapses this will be loose fissile material. This tempts other groups or factions to steal them and use them. Extend Sid-Ahmed 04 that this = extinction.

Also 1nc case arguments do not apply, also extend my responces from the subsequent speech, as well as this one.

Perm is not severence in any way he has not shown how it is severnce. Im still doing the entirety of my plan plan the troops are going to latin america. Proves the CP is plan plus and he dropped all of my Plan Plus bad theory which is an automatic voter for the PRO side. If you allow Plan Plus and disallow Perm then it kills the aff because the neg can literally steal my plan and add ANY addition to it and claim a net benefit. Also it forces the aff to debate against his own plan which kills debate. Their is no reason why we cant do both the plan and the CP in the same world, and solve back their advantages. Perm is not severance.

Case Underview
1.Extend Myers 12-18 that regime collapse is imminent because of
a.Leadership transition
b.Instability in government
c.Korea's Failing Economy

2.This causes
a.Civil War between factions in DPRK
b.Conflict between China, Russia, South Korea and US-all move in attempting to stabilize
c.Uncontrolled nukes in North Korea
-Cronin 12/21 and International Crisis Group 9
d. Each of these causes extinction- Nye 91 and Sid-Ahmed 04

3.We solve
a.First we have to withdraw our troops because China does not like our presence there
b.China and South Korea will go to North Korea and
-Denuclearize
-Ensure peaceful leadership transition
-Reunify
c. But we have to withdraw –Nguyen 9 and Onozuka 6
boredinclass

Con

Cp- is a plan inclusive counterplan, Extend perm attack from 2nc. He never gives a warrant for how his perm is not extra-topical. Therefore, all advantages are benefits of the cp. All his impacts become mine, extend all cp advantages. I answered plan plus good with plan inclusive counterplans are good. He cannot perm without violating the rules of debate, kills education and destroys entirety of neg ground. He should have attacked any advantages or anything reallly on the cp. All he said was perm which prove doesn't solve. extend all case attacks. The clash makes it null. Th vote comes down to the cp. it gives all solvency to me, Never answered arguments, impacts are most real world. If we stop the flow of latin american drugs, then we solve for HIV, alot of Poverty, Crime, and prison overopulation. This solves much more than their case would, because our impacts are real world and are proving to be happening. Their impacts are hazy, with no timefame or probability argument. prefer neg arguments

Kick DA

Vote Neg for the Cp. We win because we destroyed their perm and solve for the entirety of the case
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PolDebat101 5 years ago
PolDebat101
Ahhh Brenavia

In no way did i drop CP or Extra T. Did u read my speech?
Posted by PolDebat101 5 years ago
PolDebat101
First of all what do u mean incomprehensible arguments? If you dont understand shortened words or acronyms then why judge this round? and no policy debate doesnt encourage that because policy is speaking in real life. This is a mock round. Im saying that because its policy, we make more arguments and need to fit them into the limit so we type fast.

And my job as aff is to present a problem with the status quo and how i solve it. If they say something bad will happen (eg: nuke deterance) the i defend it. also we all know troops are their for deterance, but why would i state that? 1. That only hurts my case 2. If my opponent points it out i defend it.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Policy debate encourages incomprehensible arguments, sentences without verbs, and general gibberish? If so, then don't do policy debate; it's a skill best avoided.

There is no need to consider to answer arguments not raised. I just thought that someone building a case about withdrawing troops from South Korea might want to work into their case the actual reason why the troops are there. Little did I know that the style of policy debate precludes anything of substance.
Posted by PolDebat101 5 years ago
PolDebat101
@Roylatham yes we were doing policy so we had more argument which means more abreviations and quick typing. Also, my opponent didnt make any arguments about nuke deterance, therefore i do not have to defend any argumnt like that. Judges dont assume things that werent brought up in the debate.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
@Roylatham, we were doing a policy round
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
Nice TL;DR by the OP. Use the bloody enter key, dummy.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
This debate was close to incomprehensible. Use plain English, don't pack in abbreviations, and use sentences with verbs. It's best to avoid debate jargon, although for a school debate that's not critical.

Pro's plan was unsupported by factual evidence. Foreign policy opinions should be backed up by news reports and expert opinion. Con seemed not to contest Pro, however, and offered no evidence either.

The US maintains a small force in South Korea that maintains nuclear weapons. The purpose is to deter the North from invading. Now that the North has nukes, the nuclear deterrent grows in importance. Hence a plan to withdraw has to address nuclear deterrence in the region. One possibility is to turn the nukes over to South Korea, or perhaps give the nukes and the deterrence problem to Japan. Anyway, a good case should address that issue.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
The new one isn't a PIC, it's an alt plan
Posted by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
Plan-pluses are horrible. Nobody (well, not nobody, but a lot of people) who votes on this site is going to know anything anyway.
Posted by PolDebat101 5 years ago
PolDebat101
It would be a good counterplan, if it was competitive.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
PolDebat101boredinclassTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped cp and extra-t
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
PolDebat101boredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides verge on total incoherence, but Pro managed to include a few complete sentences. Put spaces after paragraphs, don't use abbreviations, use complete sentences. Run spell check. As best I can figure it, Con didn't contest Pro, but offered somethig that could be done in addition.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
PolDebat101boredinclassTied
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: Actually, when I look back at the debate, I remember how much I hate plan pluses like the neg ran. They're generic and destroy aff ground.