The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Topic is the first sentence in the debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 6063
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the
number of persons serving in the Armed Forces by substantially increasing the pecuniary and educational benefits as well as end strength for Pest Management (3E4X3) in order to enable the National Guard to apply its pest control operations procedure to the emerging squirrel crisis.

Don't be a moron - if you're going to equivocate on the topic, then GTFO.

Standards: We are debating about the sentence beginning with "Resolved:". Any negative wishing to present a kritikal alt or alternative framework must prove theirs superior to have it accepted.

Observation 1 is Inherency
Squirrels have been running amok since 1975 when Executive Order 11870 banned the most effective squirrel poison – other approaches require more personnel
Department of the Army Historical Summary, 2004 (27 August 2004,

The ground squirrel population in that area has increased to a point where the rodents pose threats on several counts. They are potential carriers of bubonic plague, cause damage to buildings and facilities, reduce crop production, and compete with other wild life for available food. Since 1971 the Army has not applied effective pest control measures at Fort Ord. Resumption of these measures has been precluded since 1975 by Executive Order 11870, which forbade the use on federal lands of "secondary poisons" which make the tissue poisonous to other

Advantage 1 is the Power Grid

Now squirrels are once again on the rampage causing tens of thousands of power outages yearly, and now is key – attacks have tripled in the past year

Gomez, 2007 (3-11-07, "Suicide squirrels driving utilities nuts", Alan,

What caused more outages? The lightning or the squirrels? Four of the past five years, the answer has been the squirrels in Nebraska. Nebraska is not alone. Many states are grappling with a big increase in the number of power outages caused by squirrel electrocutions. Squirrels that fry themselves on power lines and transformers cause tens of thousands of blackouts every year.
Some states have seen a massive jump in recent years in the number of such outages. In Georgia, squirrel-related outages more than tripled from 5,273 in 2005 to 16,750 in 2006.

And, Electricity failures cause nuclear meltdowns
EIJ ‘2K (Earth Island Journal, Winter,
Reactors depend on off-site electric power to run cooling systems and control rooms, with emergency diesel generators for automatic backup. Unfortunately, according to Olsen, even in the US these generators are "not even 90 percent reliable."… "It takes only two hours without the cooling system functioning for reactor fuel to melt," Olsen says. Power failures also could cause "a meltdown of nuclear fuel storage pools .... These pools must be cooled for at least five years."
Loss of off-site electrical power poses the most prominent risk to nuclear powerplant safety.

And, Meltdown kills millions and causes extinction by widespread sterility

Wasserman '02 (Harvey, Senior Editor – Free Press, Earth Island Journal, Spring,

The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet.Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill
thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma and blindness would afflict millions. Evacuation would be impossible.

Natural ecosystems would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. The ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all
future generations.

Advantage 2 is the Utilities Sector
Squirrel attacks are dragging down the utilities sector

Gomez, 2007 (3-11-07, "Suicide squirrels driving utilities nuts", Alan,

Squirrels that fry themselves are costly. Georgia
Power officials estimate the rodents cost them $2 million last year. Stopping the squirrels is costing utilities millions more dollars.

Austin Energy in Texas is alone spending over one hundred thousand dollars on squirrel guards. UPI, 2006 (Dec. 25,, United Press International)

Austin Energy power company in Texas has revealed approximately 20 percent
of all its power outages are the result of squirrels and could likely be responsible for nearly 700 area outages a year."He's a formidable foe. Ask anyone who has been stuck in traffic or left in the dark because of a squirrel." Austin Energy is spending more than $100,000 annually to install deterrents on equipment to keep the animals at bay.

But squirrels cannot be stopped – they can only be killed; they will squirrel their way
around any barriers, making guards a waste of money

Gomez, 2007 (3-11-07, "Suicide squirrels driving utilities nuts", Alan,

"squirrel guards" have been placed on transformers. The guards vary. Some are plastic or silicone caps. The "Critter Guard" features a flat disk that spins around whenever a squirrel tries to climb past. Others deliver a minor shock to the squirrel to scare it off. PECO, which powers Philadelphia spends $1 million a year on
squirrel guards to stop outages from "those rascally little varmints."

But squirrels adapt to the technology. "Whenever we think we've got them figured out, they try something else," Engelman said.

And, Electric sector is critical to the economy – any negative effects ripple quickly through the economy

Singh, 1998 (Hon. Ganja Singh, Minister of Public Utilities, September 11,

Essential to life in a modern society, utility services constitute the infrastructural
foundations of the development process. The level of these services
are generally regarded as direct measures of the quality of life. Providing infrastructure services is one of the major challenges of economic development. Utility services have strong linkages to the national economy and to human well-being. Inefficiencies in the provision of these services are likely to be felt quickly and throughout the economy and, thereby, impact adversely on the
competitiveness of the national economy. Good utility infrastructure, raises productivity, lowers production costs and improves the quality of life.

And, Economic struggles in the U.S. directly affect Japan and China and quickly spread globally
Frontline, 5-6-2005
[India's National Magazine, from the publishers of THE HINDU, Volume 22 - Issue 09,]

A slowdown in the U.S. would affect Japan as well. The effect would be far greater than suggested since there are a number of non-Japanese firms in China exporting to the U.S. that import from Japanese firms. What all this implies is that a slowdown in the U.S. can not only rein in growth in the other major growth-pole in the world economy, China, but also have ripple effects in the form of deceleration across the globe that can spiral into a major crisis.

And, Global economic collapse equals global nuclear war
Thomas Bearden, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000 (June 24,

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions . Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. the only chance


I must negate:

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the
number of persons serving in the Armed Forces by substantially increasing the pecuniary and educational benefits as well as end strength for Pest Management (3E4X3) in order to enable the National Guard to apply its pest control operations procedure to the emerging squirrel crisis.


Observation 1: ‘Armed Forces' Topicality

A. Definition
"The military forces of a country"… In this case, the United States Armed Forces

B. Standard 1- The resolution calls for a ‘substantial increase in the number of people serving in the ARMED FORCES.

C. Standard 2- There must be a change in the number of ‘Armed Forces' in order to be topical.

D. Violation- The Affirmative doesn't so much as MENTION ‘Armed Forces' besides stating the resolution.
-In fact, all he talks about is killing squirrels. In order to complete the demand in the resolution, you must do ‘A' (kill squirrels) to get ‘B' (substantially increase Armed Forces). He only calls for ‘A'.

E. Violation- Affirmative has NO evidence with Armed Forces talked about or increased.


Observation 2: "Substantial" Topicality (both of them)

A. Definition, Unabridged
"of real worth, value, or effect"

B. Standard 1A (First substantial): There must be a valuable and effective increase from about 480,000 troops.
- "There are about 480,000 soldiers on active duty."

C. Standard 1B: There must be around (at least) 100,000 troop increase in order to be substantial.

D. Standard 2A: Affirmative must link to pecuniary benefits.

E. Standard 2B: Affirmative must link to educational benefits.

F. Violation (1): There is NO change in "Armed Forces" let alone a substantial increase.

G. Violation (2): Affirmative offers no evidence that links to pecuniary benefits OR educational benefits.


Observation 3: Solvency is not achieved

A. No plan text.
-My opponent offers NO way to kill every single squirrel. Essentially assuming that the United States can pick and choose who they want to kill. Well, if you look to how long it's taking us to find Osama Bin Laden, you will see that squirrels WILL survive no matter how hard we try. The only way to actually kill them, would be to nuke the earth off its orbit which would of course be non-topical.

B. All advantages are not related to the ‘goal' of the debate of increasing the Armed Forces.

C. Flow through opponent's statement: ""Whenever we think we've got them figured out, they try something else," Engelman said.
-This shows that if we try to kill them, they will think of something else. Likely, this will be counter-mass producing and increasing desire for revenge. Survival is the basic instinct of ALL except the human.


Observation 4: War with the Squirrels DA.

A. Uniqueness
-We are currently NOT at war with the squirrels. However, trying to kill them will send the message that we don't want them around. Thus, the next major war for America will be upon us. Do you really think that we can handle another major war?

B. Squirrels are smart (link)
"(By the way), Eastern gray squirrels aren't even native to the BBC viewing area. They're an unprotected, invasive pest species in Britain, only introduced in the 19th century, and are slowly driving out the native red squirrel like living kudzu. What a shame for a living, breathing, decision-making creature to be forced into the role of unwelcome invader."
-YOU SEE, even though there is open season on them, there is no way to catch all of them, so cross apply this evidence to observation 3. But besides that, Squirrels adapted to being not wanted and survived in Britain. If they can survive their onslaught, they can survive ours.

C. Squirrels will attack (harm)
-Opponents evidence
"Austin Energy power company in Texas has revealed approximately 20 percent of all its power outages are the result of squirrels and could likely be responsible for nearly 700 area outages a year"
-If we were to just carelessly attack them with this type of poison, imagine how much they could harm us. If anything, the squirrel war would lead to FEWER Armed Forces compared to more like the resolution suggests.

I reserve the right to clarify, as well as add evidence to further support my position.


Therefore, I offer the following Counter-plan:

Observation 5: Counter-plan

A. Plan text: The USFG will adopt squirrels as a member of the Armed Forces.

B. Mutually Exclusive
-There is no way that you can pass a plan to kill all squirrels AND adopt them to the Armed Forces.

C. Non-Topical
-Although the goals of the two plans are the same, it is in the way we do it that is different. The resolution calls for 3E4X3 to kill squirrels while I offer the squirrels to be a member of our army.

D. All unneeded squirrels can be shipped off to Iraq to invade the enemy's base.
-Therefore, all "squirrel crisis" issues will be given to al-Qaeda. A million squirrels attacking them will A) piss them off! B) cause all harms they caused to us! and C) scare wanted terrorists out of their caves! This leads to a win-win situation.

E. A war with the Squirrels would be non-existent if we befriended them.

F. Our Armed Forces would be substantially increased.
-With all of the Squirrels in the world JOINING us, we would be MUCH better off.

Therefore, the counter-plan has better means, better ends.

-Since I assume that the five round debate means that I have at least 2 constructive, I reserve the right to add arguments respectively.

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Clarification: Topic is the plan text. I am affirming the topic in that the topic is my plan text. LOL

//I reserve the right to clarify.//

The Neg gets to clarify, so should we - reciprocity is a voter for fairness.

Off T - Armed Forces

1. The affirmative plan is that the USFG should increase the number of people in the armed forces.

2. The debate is about whether or not we should do the plan - we get Fiat to say that the number of people would increase.

3. This T stems from a lack of understanding by the neg - the plan text is the topic.

Off T - substantial

1. No warrant to his C, I don't have to increase by 100K soldiers, only a substantial amount.
2. Plan text provides for a substantial increase in the number of soldiers increased - we get fiat.
3. We fiat pecuniary and education to cause the increase.
Off T - not the armed forced

We're not extra T - its already standard policy for the National Guard to do animal control

Heath et al, 1998
("Animals in Disasters",
Secretary/Treasurer, American Academy on Veterinary Disaster Medicine,

If your initial assessment requires resources beyond your local capability, your State emergency management office should be notified of this immediately.The National Guard may be asked to assist with animal control issues and animal´┐Ż
related claims investigations.

Off Solvency -

A and B, group them: Cross apply the clarification and the T - armed forces #3.
C. If you read the rest of the card, engelman was talking about stopping the squirrels from suiciding - he said you couldnt stop them short of killing them - this is what we solve for; more people means we can kill them.

Off Obs 4 -

A. The squirrels are currently at war with us, though. They attack us and do the damage listed in the 1ac harms. We need to fight back to solve for extinction.

C. His C is nonunique - they're already attacking. We stop them from attacking by killing them, as per the Armed forces protocals (as per the plan text).

Off CP -

Perm -
1. Perm do both - invite the squirrels into the Armed Forces then kill them. CP is not exclusive.
2. Perm do plan and all mutually exclusive parts of the CP.

CP sucks -
3. Squirrels don't have higher level brain function. If they join the military, they'll accidentally set off all our guys and kill us, or continue suiciding on the electricity lines (per the 1ac).


OFF CLARIFICATION: Just because you have clarified plan text does not mean that you automatically get whatever you want. HOW you do something doesn't mean that you actually can. Links to solvency is still of massive importance. So the T's still stand as I will now prove:


T: Armed Forces

1.--> A. Fiat is not some Magical Jeanie that grants wishes. HOW do you plan on increasing the Armed Forces? Money Incentives? Cloning? Drafting a bunch of people that do not want to do it? Just saying we are fiating an increase in the Armed Forces does not mean that there will be an increase

B. KRITIK: It is impossible for me to know what kind of disadvantages will come from an affirmation of the resolution without knowing how a substantial increase in Armed Forces will come or HOW the squirrel crisis will be ended or HOW education and pecuniary benefits will be increased. Therefore, this unfairness must be voted on (in favor of negative) if my opponent fails to give me this information.

2.--> Fiat is simply making the judge Congress (or perhaps the Supreme Court). Now the question is, what piece of legislation could you possibly past to increase the amount of Armed Forces. And what sort of legislation could you possible past to eliminate every squirrel. And how could this amount of money and work possibly outweigh the advantages? These questions aren't solved by simply saying the word fiat. And until you give more clarification, I can not possibly argue something that is so vague. "I'm going to do this"… well HOW?!?

3--> If the plan text is the topic, then there is no evidence that all squirrels can be killed. Therefore, you must vote Negative NOW!


T: Substantial

1.--> A. I am the only one to give a definition. Therefore, my definition of "of real worth, value, or effect" MUST be accepted and flowed through to the end of the round.

B. I am the only one to give interpretation of the definition. If 100k armed forces isn't substantial what is? 80K? 50k? Either way, there isn't ANY evidence of a valuable increase. If you look to the EVIDENCE, not a single increase of armed forces will be achieved. He claims fiat, well, what will fiat (Congress) pass to increase these troops.

2.--> Ok, you get fiat. BUT… if Congress were to pass a bill that said we are going to increase troop size by 50,000, does that mean that it magically is increased that much? NO! This is why just simply passing the resolution as the plan text gets virtually NO solvency and certainly no solvency that is topical.

3.--> HOW?!? I guess I don't get why killing a bunch of squirrels gets you money AND educational benefits. If fiat got this, then they could simply pass a bill that said all students not have an I.Q. of 200. But unfortunately, this can not happen and therefore their still must be METHODS of doing this. Something that Affirmative has yet to show.


I never pushed the extra Topical of who is doing this so I really don't care about the National Guard doing this. Although I do have a problem with what job they are going to cut of the national guards to make this possible. His answer seems to be increase more people, but I don't see where these magical soldiers are coming from.


Observation 3:

Please Flow through my Solvency arguments. He just cross-applies his T argumentation but you have to see that there is no way to do the plan. There are not enough people to kill every squirrel. Also cross-apply my argument that says that there is no way to kill every squirrel. There are so many and so small that elimination of this entire species is an uphill battle.


Observation 4 (Disadvantage):

This is simply a question of what makes a group more apt to go to war? Doing nothing to them, or trying to kill them all? If you look to the status quo, there are only a few squirrels misbehaving. However, when you punish a group, they will rally together to take down ‘the establishment'. Flow through the two pieces of evidence that say that squirrels are smart and squirrels will adapt. These are essential to see what squirrels are capable of. And therefore, by passing the resolution, we will all be at risk of squirrel anarchy.


Observation 5 (counter-plan):

1. You can not adopt them into the Armed Forces and then kill them. That would go against Congress by committing tyranny. And would be known as betrayal. Which by the way is known as one of the most provoking actions on this Earth therefore fueling the disadvantage. Thus losing net-benefits and making it once again mutually exclusive. (Unperm)

2. Affirmative is abusive by wanting to do the entire plan and only some of the CP. The whole point of the CP is to get solvency without causing any of the harms including squirrel genocide.

3.-->A) I am the only one to provide evidence of squirrels brain function and that is that they adapt. They can therefore adapt to our requests.

B) If we release them at an Iraqi base (that is an enemy), the same harms will happen there that USED TO happen in America. Thus we are shifting the harms to our enemy and also avoiding monetary harms that it would take to increase the Armed Forces.


Observation 6: Kritik (new)

My opponent offers a lot of arguments with no analysis or evidence. Thus creating a time suck for me and giving him a huge character advantage. Please do not accept tagging arguments as acceptable or else the debate will become who can tag their arguments better.


In the end, all of my arguments stand. Affirmative is non-topical in several ways, offers no link to solvency, basically drops and accepts squirrel war as a future thing we must accept, and the Counter-Plan is superior with all of the solvency and none of the harms, and finally he is being abusive by arguing with only tags AND holding off on HOW he is going to do this. I urge you to look at ANY of these things and therefore vote Negative.
Debate Round No. 2


PublicForumG-d forfeited this round.


For some reason, PublicForumG-d's account has been closed. This is truly unfortunate. So please flow my arguments through to the end of this round, and vote NEGATIVE!
Debate Round No. 3


PublicForumG-d forfeited this round.


...................................................................................................................................What's the deal with airline food?...............................................................
Debate Round No. 4


PublicForumG-d forfeited this round.


My voting issues for this round are all of the dropped arguments. Furthermore, his only argument is that he forfeited a round and since this is not sufficient enough to prove anything, I urge your to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
*sigh... WHY does your account have to be closed. EPIC FAIL. I was looking forward to this debate's conclusion. :(
Posted by PublicForumG-d 7 years ago
Oh crap, I reported your R1 as nudity/pornography accidentally. Sorry!
Posted by PublicForumG-d 7 years ago
Oh you're policy tho rite?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 7 years ago
We're not extra T - its already standard policy for the National Guard to do animal control

Heath et al, 1998
("Animals in Disasters",
Secretary/Treasurer, American Academy on Veterinary Disaster Medicine,

If your initial assessment requires resources beyond your local capability, your State emergency management office should be notified of this immediately.The 
National Guard may be asked to assist with animal control issues and animal­
related claims investigations.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
How does this link to Armed Forces?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07