Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

International involvement

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

I mean, unless one of you is arguing that, I guess.

But I would have thought that the point would be that when in conflict with OTHER national interests, countering terrorism ought to be prioritized, the implication being that it's more important than any other (normal) national interest.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:02:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

That was a huge issue for Affs at nationals; yet, I still voted aff 4 times (out of a total of 10 debates). It felt fairly balanced...more so than I anticipated. It depends on how you frame it and how well neg articulates and impacts the topicality arguments.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 2:02:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

That was a huge issue for Affs at nationals; yet, I still voted aff 4 times (out of a total of 10 debates). It felt fairly balanced...more so than I anticipated. It depends on how you frame it and how well neg articulates and impacts the topicality arguments.

Didn't realize that was the LD Nationals topic this time. Huh. Well, I still think it's poorly phrased, but dealing with that sort of thing is the mark of a good debater, I suppose. I'd be interested in seeing the broad strokes of cases that were run, though--exactly in what way they dealt with it. Did they generally find a way to just get judges to prefer an interpretation that was in keeping with what might be a "better" rephrasing?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:36:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 2:06:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:02:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

That was a huge issue for Affs at nationals; yet, I still voted aff 4 times (out of a total of 10 debates). It felt fairly balanced...more so than I anticipated. It depends on how you frame it and how well neg articulates and impacts the topicality arguments.

Didn't realize that was the LD Nationals topic this time.

It was for CatNats. The NFL Nationals topic is "Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable."

Huh. Well, I still think it's poorly phrased, but dealing with that sort of thing is the mark of a good debater, I suppose.

I 100% agree it was poorly phrased. It really was, and it had the potential to be massively neg-biased; yet, I didn't see that bias materialize.

I'd be interested in seeing the broad strokes of cases that were run, though--exactly in what way they dealt with it. Did they generally find a way to just get judges to prefer an interpretation that was in keeping with what might be a "better" rephrasing?

No, they generally ran deontological positions that clearly generated conflict, or they would have some excuses as to where there was a conflict. But, the most compelling neg argument was still topicality.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:48:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 2:36:02 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:06:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:02:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

That was a huge issue for Affs at nationals; yet, I still voted aff 4 times (out of a total of 10 debates). It felt fairly balanced...more so than I anticipated. It depends on how you frame it and how well neg articulates and impacts the topicality arguments.

Didn't realize that was the LD Nationals topic this time.

It was for CatNats. The NFL Nationals topic is "Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable."

I googled....poorly.

Actually, I googled fine, I just didn't actually read the page, I just saw "2015 GNT LD Debate Championship Topic" when I should have looked at the website I was on.

Huh. Well, I still think it's poorly phrased, but dealing with that sort of thing is the mark of a good debater, I suppose.

I 100% agree it was poorly phrased. It really was, and it had the potential to be massively neg-biased; yet, I didn't see that bias materialize.

I'd be interested in seeing the broad strokes of cases that were run, though--exactly in what way they dealt with it. Did they generally find a way to just get judges to prefer an interpretation that was in keeping with what might be a "better" rephrasing?

No, they generally ran deontological positions that clearly generated conflict, or they would have some excuses as to where there was a conflict. But, the most compelling neg argument was still topicality.

Interesting.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 2:48:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:36:02 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:06:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:02:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

I kinda think that resolution might benefit from rephrasing--because I doubt you're going to argue that countering terrorism isn't in the national interest...

That was a huge issue for Affs at nationals; yet, I still voted aff 4 times (out of a total of 10 debates). It felt fairly balanced...more so than I anticipated. It depends on how you frame it and how well neg articulates and impacts the topicality arguments.

Didn't realize that was the LD Nationals topic this time.

It was for CatNats. The NFL Nationals topic is "Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable."

I googled....poorly.

Actually, I googled fine, I just didn't actually read the page, I just saw "2015 GNT LD Debate Championship Topic" when I should have looked at the website I was on.

It's okay. CatNats is still nationals...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:29:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd be interested in seeing the broad strokes of cases that were run, though--exactly in what way they dealt with it.

So this is exactly why I started this thread. I have googled it but I was curious to see what people on DDO think. Y'know to help me brainstorm.

Mostly because Its not everyday you get to debate BSH1... I want to give it my best shot.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:32:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

Con. Why should a nation counter terrorism when it isn't in its national interest? If the terrorism, for example, is undermining a geopolitical foe, it would be a huge blunder to intercede unless some larger benefit could be derived from it. Or even in wartime. Let's say we were fighting the Nazis in North Africa, and hadn't yet penetrated their heartland yet, and rebel groups began bombing infrastructure and setting off explosives in populated places within the Third Reich. Do we stop that, just because it's terrorism, even though it aligns with our national interest in seeing our enemy defeated? Hell, I'd say that we fund those groups covertly as we advance.

Nothing should supersede any international actor's raison d'Etat. The minute that it does is the minute that said actor begins to fail.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 5:32:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

Con. Why should a nation counter terrorism when it isn't in its national interest? If the terrorism, for example, is undermining a geopolitical foe, it would be a huge blunder to intercede unless some larger benefit could be derived from it. Or even in wartime. Let's say we were fighting the Nazis in North Africa, and hadn't yet penetrated their heartland yet, and rebel groups began bombing infrastructure and setting off explosives in populated places within the Third Reich. Do we stop that, just because it's terrorism, even though it aligns with our national interest in seeing our enemy defeated? Hell, I'd say that we fund those groups covertly as we advance.

Nothing should supersede any international actor's raison d'Etat. The minute that it does is the minute that said actor begins to fail.

So hypothetically lets say genocide is occurring on the other side of the world... Human rights violations everywhere is there a moral obligation to help?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:41:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 5:35:14 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/27/2015 5:32:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/27/2015 10:52:22 AM, kasmic wrote:
I am preparing to do a live debate with BSH1 the resolve being "When in conflict, international actions to counter terrorism ought to be prioritized over the national interest."

Are you pro or con to this resolution and why?

Con. Why should a nation counter terrorism when it isn't in its national interest? If the terrorism, for example, is undermining a geopolitical foe, it would be a huge blunder to intercede unless some larger benefit could be derived from it. Or even in wartime. Let's say we were fighting the Nazis in North Africa, and hadn't yet penetrated their heartland yet, and rebel groups began bombing infrastructure and setting off explosives in populated places within the Third Reich. Do we stop that, just because it's terrorism, even though it aligns with our national interest in seeing our enemy defeated? Hell, I'd say that we fund those groups covertly as we advance.

Nothing should supersede any international actor's raison d'Etat. The minute that it does is the minute that said actor begins to fail.

So hypothetically lets say genocide is occurring on the other side of the world... Human rights violations everywhere is there a moral obligation to help?

No. Morality doesn't enter into geopolitics. If a nation has the resources, and they benefit from it, even if the benefit is only PR, then go for it. Otherwise, disengage.

Let's say that there's a certain tribe in Afghanistan, fully behind the Taliban, and working to arm them. A genocide against that tribe by another would actually be in our best interests. War is often, in effect if not in intent, nothing but well-organized, controlled genocide anyway. It's a buzz word at this point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. Morality doesn't enter into geopolitics. If a nation has the resources, and they benefit from it, even if the benefit is only PR, then go for it. Otherwise, disengage.

Why would you say this is the case?

Should this be the case?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 5:43:26 PM, kasmic wrote:
No. Morality doesn't enter into geopolitics. If a nation has the resources, and they benefit from it, even if the benefit is only PR, then go for it. Otherwise, disengage.

Why would you say this is the case?

It's the case because nations aren't people, and don't have morality. They're represented by a class which is empowered to make decisions pertaining to arms and resources in order to compete with other such classes in other nations. Those who act amorally tend to survive longer, while those who act morally tend to fall to those who don't follow the same rules. The same applies to this ruling class within their own society; those without scruples tend to rise to, and stay, at the top. If you want to anthropomorphize nations, then they're basically stuck in a Hobbesian State of Nature.

Should this be the case?

I really don't like the word 'should', lol. We can't change it. I think that talking about changing it is just a smokescreen to hide from ourselves the nature of the beast which protects us.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:57:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why would you say this is the case?

It's the case because nations aren't people, and don't have morality. They're represented by a class which is empowered to make decisions pertaining to arms and resources in order to compete with other such classes in other nations. Those who act amorally tend to survive longer, while those who act morally tend to fall to those who don't follow the same rules. The same applies to this ruling class within their own society; those without scruples tend to rise to, and stay, at the top. If you want to anthropomorphize nations, then they're basically stuck in a Hobbesian State of Nature.

I was wondering if you would mention Hobbes... the international realm being anarchic in nature is an interesting reality.

Should this be the case?

I really don't like the word 'should', lol. We can't change it. I think that talking about changing it is just a smokescreen to hide from ourselves the nature of the beast which protects us.

So should is irrelevant because it cant be otherwise?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 5:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 5:57:24 PM, kasmic wrote:
Should this be the case?

I really don't like the word 'should', lol. We can't change it. I think that talking about changing it is just a smokescreen to hide from ourselves the nature of the beast which protects us.

So should is irrelevant because it cant be otherwise?

It's irrelevant if you want to understand how the whole system really works. yes, because it cannot be otherwise. It's very relevant if you want to pull the wool over people's eyes, which is often necessary. Most people want to believe that they're country is 'doing good'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Have you read Morgenthau. It seems you buy into Realism as he describes it.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:01:18 PM, kasmic wrote:
Have you read Morgenthau. It seems you buy into Realism as he describes it.

Haha, he's on my extended reading list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I read slower than I discover things to read.

Machiavelli is my muse.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:03:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Its a shame you did not really participate in this debate... I would have liked to read it haha. http://www.debate.org...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:03:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:01:18 PM, kasmic wrote:
Have you read Morgenthau. It seems you buy into Realism as he describes it.

Haha, he's on my extended reading list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I read slower than I discover things to read.

Machiavelli is my muse.

I gotcha... I studied IR in college, I ended up reading a fair amount of Morgenthau.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:03:48 PM, kasmic wrote:
Its a shame you did not really participate in this debate... I would have liked to read it haha. http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, my computer died and I took an extended hiatus from DDO right around that time =(

I felt bad leaving Lannan with an empty podium
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:06:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:04:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:03:48 PM, kasmic wrote:
Its a shame you did not really participate in this debate... I would have liked to read it haha. http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, my computer died and I took an extended hiatus from DDO right around that time =(

I felt bad leaving Lannan with an empty podium

It happens. I am sure he would do a rematch if you asked.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...