You are on page 1of 53

LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: PDD-25 Prevents solvency

1. PDD-25 Allows the President to place troops under UN


control
Snyder in 1995 (William, “Command versus Operational Control: A
critical review of PDD-25” http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/pdd25.html)
On May 3, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), a policy
directive outlining the administration's position on reforming multilateral peace operations.1 The
result of a 14-month inter-agency review of U.S. policy regarding multinational peacekeeping
operations, PDD-25 sets forth several stringent requirements that must be satisfied before the
U.S. will participate in future international peacekeeping operations and suggests ways in which
the U.N. could improve its management of such operations.2 In one of PDD-25's provisions,
the Clinton Administration attempts to clarify the position of the United States with regarding
command and control of United States military personnel participating in a multilateral
defines "command" of United States
peacekeeping operations.3 The Directive
armed forces and "operational control" of those forces,
distinguishes the two, and maintains that although the President
never relinquishes "command" over United States military
personnel, he may place United States military personnel under
the "operational control" of a non-U.S. commander for limited
and defined purposes.4

1
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: No Early warning for Genocide

1. Genocide can currently be predicted, the only question


is how fast can we get to stop it
2. Predicting genocide will never be 100% possible,
though it is possible to see warning signs before it
happens.
3. The question shouldn’t be, how can we predict
genocide, the question should be how will we stop a
conflict before it becomes genocide. Extend our third
card from advantage 2, Campbell in 2001 that says the
only way to stop perpetrators of violent masscres and
genocide is the use of a credible, fast, military force

2
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Security Council Veto = Calculability

1. Derrida says we have an infinite responsibility to the


other and an ethical responsibility not to calculate. We
solve for as much of that as we can without
international fiat.
2. Any decrease in calculation is better then the status
quo. This outweighs all.
3. Everyone except the US currently wants a RRF. Its in
the best interest of everyone not to veto it.

3
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: China DA

1. Non unique – There are many ongoing peacekeeping


operations going on right now and their impacts have
not happened yet.
2. Non unique – Sino US relations are deteriorating now
because of US support for Taiwan

3. No threshold – There is nothing to prove that increasing


support be even one more degree of support will cause
their impact to happen.
4. China currently supports peacekeeping operations
August, 2004 [Oliver, Staffwriter for Times Online, China
Peacekeping role starts in Haiti,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1315340,00.html, October
18, 2004]
CHINA deployed riot police to Haiti yesterday, marking the first time
that Beijing has sanctioned the participation of its Armed Forces in
peacekeeping duties in the Western hemisphere. The deployment is
seen as a major step in China’s efforts to enhance its global role.

4
LC Debate RRF __/__

The country, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has been
criticised for not shouldering its share of the burden of peacekeeping
duties. More recently, however, it has cultivated a higher profile in
international affairs, playing host to six-party talks aimed at resolving a
crisis over the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. The contingent of
95 riot police, including 13 women, spent three months preparing
and passed exams administered by the UN. The Chinese, specially
trained for riots and crowd control, will join a multinational force on the
troubled island, where about 50 people have been killed since
September.

5. Realism good – Its not in China’s best interest to go to


war with us.
6. Empiricly Denied – When they shot down our spy plane
our relations were at a huge low and we still didn’t go
to war.
7. The scenario for nuclear escalation and war they
imagine will always be prevented by deterrence.
Baudrillard in 81 [Jean, “Simulacra and Simulation” p. 32-35]
the nuclear. However, the balance of terror is never
The apotheosis of simulation:
anything but the spectacular slope of a system of deterrence that has
insinuated itself from the inside into all the cracks of daily life. Nuclear
suspension only serves to seal the trivialized system of deterrence that is at the heart of the media, of the
violence without consequences that reigns throughout the world, of the aleatory apparatus of all the
choices that are made for us. The most insignificant of our behaviors is regulated by neutralized,
indifferent, equivalent signs, by zero-sum signs like those that regulate the "strategy of games" (but the
true equation is elsewhere, and the unknown is precisely that variable of simulation which makes of the
a simulacrum that dominates everything and
atomic arsenal itself a hyperreal form,
reduces all "ground-level" events to being nothing but ephemeral
scenarios, transforming the life left us into survival, into a stake without stakes not even into a life
insurance policy: into a policy that already has no value).
It is not the direct threat of atomic destruction that paralyzes our lives, it is deterrence that gives them
leukemia. And this deterrence comes from that fact that even the real atomic clash is precluded-precluded
like the eventuality of the real in a system of signs. The whole world pretends to believe in
the reality of this threat (this is understandable on the part of the military, the gravity of their
exercise and the discourse of their "strategy" are at stake), but it is precisely at this level that there are no
strategic stakes. The whole originality of the situation lies in the improbability of destruction.
Deterrence precludes war-the archaic violence of expanding systems. Deterrence itself is the neutral,
implosive violence of metastable systems or systems in involution. There is no longer a subject of
deterrence, nor an adversary nor a strategy-it is a planetary structure of the annihilation of stakes. Atomic
war, like the Trojan War, will not take place.The risk of nuclear annihilation only serves as
a pretext, through the sophistication of weapons (a sophistication that surpasses any possible objective
to such an extent that it is itself a symptom of nullity), for installing a universal security
system, a universal lockup and control system whose deterrent effect is not at all aimed at an atomic
clash (which was never in question, except without a doubt in the very initial stages of the cold war, when
one still confused the nuclear apparatus with conventional war) but, rather, at the much greater probability
of any real event, of anything that would be an event in the general system and upset its balance. The
balance of terror is the terror of balance.
Deterrence is not a strategy, it circulates and is exchanged between nuclear protagonists exactly as is
international capital in the orbital zone of monetary speculation whose fluctuations suffice to control all
global exchanges. Thus the money of destruction (without any reference to real destruction,

5
LC Debate RRF __/__

that circulates in nuclear orbit


any more than floating capital has a real referent of production)
suffices to control all the violence and potential conflicts around the world.
What is hatched in the shadow of this mechanism with the pretext of a maximal, "objective," threat, and
thanks to Damocles' nuclear sword, is the perfection of the best system of control that has ever existed.
And the progressive satellization of the whole planet through this hypermodel of security. The same goes
for peaceful nuclear power stations. Pacification does not distinguish between the civil and the military:
every- where where irreversible apparatuses of control are elaborated, everywhere the notion of security
becomes omnipotent, everywhere where the norm replaces the old arsenal of laws and violence (including
war), it is the system of deterrence that grows, and around it grows the historical, social, and political
desert. A gigantic involution that makes every conflict, every finality, every confrontation contract in
proportion to this blackmail that interrupts, neutralizes, freezes them all. No longer can any
revolt, any story be deployed according to its own logic because it risks
annihilation. No strategy is possible any longer, and escalation is only a
puerile game given over to the military. The political stake is dead, only simulacra of conflicts and
carefully circumscribed stakes remain.
The "space race" played exactly the same role as nuclear escalation. This is why the space program was so
easily able to replace it in the 1960s (Kennedy/Khrushchev), or to develop concurrently as a form of
"peaceful coexistence." Because what, ultimately, is the function of the space program, of the conquest of
the moon, of the launching of satellites if not the institution of a model of universal gravitation, of
satellization of which the lunar module is the perfect embryo? Programmed microcosm, where nothing can
be left to chance. Trajectory, energy, calculation, physiology, psychology, environment-nothing can be left
to contingencies, this is the total universe of the norm-the Law no longer exists, it is the operational
immanence of every detail that is law. A universe purged of all threat of meaning, in a state of asepsis and
weightlessness-it is this very perfection that is fascinating. The exaltation of the crowds was not a
response to the event of landing on the moon or of sending a man into space (this would be, rather, the
fulfillment of an earlier dream), rather, we are dumb-founded by the perfection of the programming and
the technical manipulation, by the immanent wonder of the programmed un- folding of events. Fascination
with the maximal norm and the mastery of probability. Vertigo of the model, which unites with the model of
death, but without fear or drive. Because if the law, with its aura of transgression, if order, with its aura of
violence, still taps a perverse imaginary, the norm fixes, fascinates, stupefies, and makes every imaginary
involute. One no longer fantasizes about the minutiae of a program. Just watching it produces vertigo. The
vertigo of a world without flaws.
Now, it is the same model of programmatic infallibility, of maximum security and deterrence that today
controls the spread of the social. There lies the true nuclear fallout: the meticulous operation of
technology serves as a model for the meticulous operation of the social. Here as
well, nothing will be left to chance, moreover this is the essence of socialization, which began centuries
ago, but which has now entered its accelerated phase, toward a limit that one believed would be explosive
(revolution), but which for the moment is translated by an inverse, implosive, irreversible process: the
generalized deterrence of chance, of accident, of transversality, of finality; of contradiction, rupture, or
complexity in a sociality illuminated by the norm, doomed to the descriptive transparency of mechanisms
of information. In fact, the spatial and nuclear models do not have their own ends: neither the discovery of
the moon, nor military and strategic superiority. Their truth is to be the models of simulation, the model
vectors of a system of planetary control (where even the super- powers of this scenario are not free-the
whole world is satellized).

8. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters


inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.
9. Genocide is happening now. Nuclear war is improbable
at best. This outweighs their DA.

6
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Economy DA

1. Non unique – the US economy is headed for a downturn


as is.
Reuters News Service, 2004 [US Indicators Fall, 4th
Straight Month,
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=busines
sNews&storyID=6572126, Oct 21st, 2004]
A closely watched gauge of future U.S. economic
activity fell in September for the fourth straight month
after a stronger pace earlier in the year, a private research firm
said on Thursday. The Conference Board said its index of leading indicators fell

0.1 percent in September to 115.6, slightly stronger than the Wall Street
forecast of a 0.2 percent decline. The indicator fell 0.3 percent in August. The drop was

driven by negative readings in vendor performance, the


interest rate yield curve, average weekly initial claims
for unemployment insurance and average weekly
manufacturing hours. "A fourth consecutive decline ...
is a clear signal that the economy is losing momentum
heading into 2005," said Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein. High energy
prices and the hurricane season contributed to the declinein economic activity, he added.
Goldstein warned that if consumersbecome more cautious and concerned over the weak job
growth, then theeconomy could slow before the holiday season and cause weaker grossdomestic
product growth in the fourth quarter and the first quarter of2005.Ian Shepherdson of High
Frequency Economics said, "The index has fallen at a 0.3 percent annualized pace over the past
six months,the worst performance since (the) period immediately before the war inIraq."
"Overall, weak and worse to come," Shepherdson said.
2. Empiricly Denied – The economy was way down after
9/11, and now its recovered. Their impacts wont
happen.
3. Empiricly Denied – Bush hasn’t vetoed any new
spending since he was elected. Their impacts still
haven’t happened.

7
LC Debate RRF __/__

4. No link – We have the money now to implement the


plan

5. No Impact – The dominoe theory of economics is a elite


construction intended to galvanize political action, the
negative just buys into this economical elitisim but
there is still space to resist.

6. Turn – Helping third world countries actually helps our


economy

8
LC Debate RRF __/__

7. Turn – Multilateralism is key to trade and leadership

8. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters


inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.
9. Nuclear war is probable at best. Genocide is happening
now. Our impacts outweigh. Vote AFF.

9
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: AIDS Tradeoff DA

1. Funding will come out of existing Peacekeeping budget

2. Non unique – the US economy is headed for a downturn


as is.
Reuters News Service, 2004 [US Indicators Fall, 4th
Straight Month,
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=busines
sNews&storyID=6572126, Oct 21st, 2004]
A closely watched gauge of future U.S. economic
activity fell in September for the fourth straight month
after a stronger pace earlier in the year, a private research firm
said on Thursday. The Conference Board said its index of leading indicators fell

0.1 percent in September to 115.6, slightly stronger than the Wall Street
forecast of a 0.2 percent decline. The indicator fell 0.3 percent in August. The drop was

driven by negative readings in vendor performance, the


interest rate yield curve, average weekly initial claims
for unemployment insurance and average weekly
manufacturing hours. "A fourth consecutive decline ...
is a clear signal that the economy is losing momentum
heading into 2005," said Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein. High energy
prices and the hurricane season
<Reuters Continued…>

10
LC Debate RRF __/__

contributed to the declinein economic activity, he added. Goldstein warned that if


consumersbecome more cautious and concerned over the weak job growth, then theeconomy
could slow before the holiday season and cause weaker grossdomestic product growth in the
fourth quarter and the first quarter of2005.Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics said,
"The index has fallen at a 0.3 percent annualized pace over the past six months,the worst
performance since (the) period immediately before the war inIraq." "Overall, weak
and worse to come," Shepherdson said.
3. No link – nowhere in their evidence does it say that our
specific plan will cause the tradeoff.
4. They don’t give a timeline on when their impacts will
happen. Genocide is happening right now. We save
people now.
5. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters
inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.

11
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: US overstretch

1. No Link – Peacekeeping doesn’t cause overstretch


because the US will always support “peace and
democracy” at any cost
Thomas Donnely, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2002
The fact of American empire is hardly debated these days. Even those who
fear and oppose it (in this country, the libertarian right and the remnants of the new left; abroad, a variety
of voices from Paris to Baghdad to Beijing) define international politics almost entirely in relation to U.S.
The "unipolar moment" has become a
power -- and especially U.S. military power.
unipolar decade and, with a little effort and a little wisdom, could last
much longer. Even Yale historian Paul Kennedy, who in the mid-1980s predicted U.S. "imperial
overstretch," has become a believer. Stunned by the initial success of the war in Afghanistan, he wrote in
February, Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing. The
Pax Britannica was run on the cheap. Britain's army was much smaller than European armies and even the
right now all the other navies in the
Royal Navy was equal only to the next two navies --
world combined could not dent American maritime supremacy. Napoleon's
France and Philip II's Spain had powerful foes and were part of a multipolar system. Charlemagne's Empire
was merely western European in its stretch. The Roman Empire stretched further afield, but there was
another great empire in Persia and a larger one in China. There is no comparison. To be sure, it is still
inflammatory to speak openly of empire -- hence the prevalence of euphemisms such as hegemony,
preeminence, primacy, sole superpower, or, a la the French, hyperpuissance. But many of the nation's
founders would not be so shocked: Alexander Hamilton, writing the first paragraph of the first Federalist
Paper, described America as "an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world." Thomas
Jefferson's term was "empire of liberty." Since September 11, President George W. Bush, too, has learned
that it is hard to be a humble hegemon. During the 2000 election campaign, Bush's advisers spoke
contemptuously of the Clinton administration's promiscuous "engagement" in "nation building" and other
"international social work," and they derided Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's claim that the United
But now that he is fighting a war on
States was "the indispensable nation."
terrorism, the president asserts that "no nation is exempt" from the
"true and unchanging" American principles of liberty and justice. He
sees adherence to these principles as a "non-negotiable demand" that
forms the "greater objective" of the war. The Bush Doctrine is thus an expression of
the president's decision to preserve and extend Pax Americana throughout the Middle East and beyond
2. No impacts - They don’t have a scenario of when we
wouldn’t have enough troops
3. We have a modern military, its called an aircraft carrier
4. If all else fails we have nuclear weapons.
5. No brightline on how many troops causes overstretch
6. Turn – we are reorganizing troops out of cold war status.
This solves overstretch.
7. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters
inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.

12
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: World Government

1. Non unique – We are already involved and have been


involved in many PKO’s, impacts haven’t happened.
2. The structure of the UN checks the UN’s power. There
are set standards on when PKO’s expire.
3. No Link – None of their authors specificly talk about our
plan causing a world government
4. Globablization Good –
5. Turn – US Heg is worse then the UN being a World
Government.
6. This whole argument is completely illogical – realisticly
the United States would never let the UN take full
control of the US government.
7. No Impact – Look to what their evidence says. It has no
warrants and explanation as to how the UN could
possibly commit democide.
8. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters
inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.

13
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Heg Good

1. Non unique – US is currently leaning towards


multilateral approaches

2. No Link – Non of their authors specificly talk about how


supporting the creation of an RRF will decrease the
amount of heg we have now.
3. United States hegemony causes resent and the
proliferation of WMD’s

4. US heg causes alliances to form to counterbalance US


power

14
LC Debate RRF __/__

5. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters


inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.

15
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Sex Trafficking DA

1. No Link – the plan does not send troops to any one


place. All it does is support the creation of an RRF. Its
possible that once this force is made that they will
never have to be deployed.
2. No Impact – The DA assumes that we will be employing
Peacekeepers in the way we do currently. RRF troops
are specialized troops for peacekeeping and are
deployed differently and are trained differently then the
peacekeepers of today.
3. Their disadvantage devalues life because it fosters
inaction against genocide which is unethical. Cross
apply Dillon and Campbell in ’99. Vote them down.

16
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Politics

___No Internal link – They don’t show that political capital


is quantifiable. Without that they cant win a link.
___Empiricly denied – Bush got through his Iraq
reconstruction funding, which was very politically divisive
and required political capital
___Their impact is unlikely – There are to many factors
that could happen that could make their impact not
happen. That means that there is only a small chance
there impacts will happen, if it all. Even so we outweigh.
___Politics Da’s are bad for debate:
a. They’re repetitive – they run the exact same politics shell
every round, which doesn’t give good education for the
debaters.
b. They detract from topic focus – politics are super-generic,
so the negative never needs to read on-case or research
foreign policy, which hurts education and is against
framer’s intent.
c. It moots the resolution – the resolution is supposed to be a
guide to negative debating as well, they defeat the
purpose of having a new resolution each year by always
running the same arguments.
d. The ‘should’ in the resolution means plan is passed in a
vacuum – should means that plan ought to occur, not that
it will, so we’re effectively just debating over the plan, not
what may occur while plan is being passed, because
passage is never assumed.
e. Encourages poor evidence quality – look at their cards,
they all suck, there aren’t any warrants and most of them
are taken out of context. This type of citing would not be
acceptable for any forum besides debate – people can get
kicked out of college for misreporting sources, it shouldn’t
be encouraged in debate.
f. It hurts political activism – their large but unlikely impacts
wouldn’t be used in any forum but debate, for example,
the city council won’t be convinced that passing a new
foreign policy will lead to a republican takeover that allows
Bush to destroy the world. That makes us less effective at
political activism in the outside world.
g. Those are all reasons to vote aff, and reject the team, not
just the argument to send a message that this type of

17
LC Debate RRF __/__

argumentation won’t be tolerated and to discourage future


violations.
2. <insert politics of illusion>

18
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Canada CP

1. Perm – do the plan and have Canada do the plan


a. Perm proves that there is no textual competition,
both countries can do the plan at the same time.
2. Fiating Canada is international fiat and that’s bad
because:
a. It’s an impossible research burden – there are 192
countries in the world, any of which could make a new
foreign policy on peace keeping operations. We’d have to
research all of them to be prepared for international
counterplans, which shreds our ground.
b. It’s outside the jurisdiction of the judge – the judge is put
into the role of a US policymaker or person in Congress,
and they can’t decide issues beyond the United States.
That’s the best interpretation for debate, because it’s most
real world for roles the debaters could play in the future.
c. It’s non-reciprocal – we only get the United States, the
negative shouldn’t get more, and reciprocity is the only
objective way to decide fairness in debate.
d. Vote on it for fairness and ground.
3. Canada Cannot Solve – its own troops are highly
overstretched

19
LC Debate RRF __/__

4. Canada’s own military is small, poorly trained, and


lacks the necessary resources to solve

20
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Japan CP

1. Perm – do the plan and have Japan do the plan


a. Perm proves that there is no textual
competition, both countries can do the plan at
the same time.
2. Fiating Japan is international fiat and that’s bad
because:
a. It’s an impossible research burden – there are 192
countries in the world, any of which could make a new
foreign policy on peace keeping operations. We’d have
to research all of them to be prepared for international
counterplans, which shreds our ground.
b. It’s outside the jurisdiction of the judge – the judge is
put into the role of a US policymaker or person in
Congress, and they can’t decide issues beyond the
United States. That’s the best interpretation for debate,
because it’s most real world for roles the debaters could
play in the future.
c. It’s non-reciprocal – we only get the United States, the
negative shouldn’t get more, and reciprocity is the only
objective way to decide fairness in debate.
d. Vote on it for fairness and ground.

21
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Australia CP

1. Perm – Do the plan and have Australia do the plan


a. Perm shows that the plan and counterplan can
both be done at the same time. This proves there
is no textual competition.
2. Australia Cannot solve alone
a. The US and Australia have to work together

3. Fiating Australia is international fiat and that’s bad


because:
a. It’s an impossible research burden – there are 192
countries in the world, any of which could make a new
foreign policy on peace keeping operations. We’d have
to research all of them to be prepared for international
counterplans, which shreds our ground.
b. It’s outside the jurisdiction of the judge – the judge is
put into the role of a US policymaker or person in
Congress, and they can’t decide issues beyond the
United States. That’s the best interpretation for debate,
because it’s most real world for roles the debaters could
play in the future.
c. It’s non-reciprocal – we only get the United States, the
negative shouldn’t get more, and reciprocity is the only
objective way to decide fairness in debate.
d. Vote on it for fairness and ground.

22
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: NATO CP

1. perm
2. Nato cannot solve alone
a. NATO enforcement increases tensions

23
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: EU RRF CP

1. Perm – Send support to both the UN RRF and a EU RRF


a. Perm shows that there is no textual competition
between the two opposing plans. We can support
both.
b. With no textual competition this plan is illegit and
you as a judge cannot vote for it.
2. The EU RRF cannot solve
a.

b. An EU RRF would undermine Nato, and lose US


support in Europe

<Continued on Next…>
<A2: EU RRF CP Cont…>

24
LC Debate RRF __/__

c. There is no EU RRF currently, only a commitment


of troops

d. An EU RRF wouldn’t be functional until at least


2008

<Continued on Next…>

<A2: EU CP Cont…>

25
LC Debate RRF __/__

e. The EU lacks the capabilities to solve, US action is


key

26
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: EU CP

1. Perm – do the plan and have EU do the plan


a. Perm proves that there is no textual competition,
both countries can do the plan at the same time.
2. They cannot fiat the EU since that would be
international fiat and thus cannot solve
a. It’s an impossible research burden – there are 192
countries in the world, any of which could make a new
foreign policy on peace keeping operations. We’d have to
research all of them to be prepared for international
counterplans, which shreds our ground.
b. It’s outside the jurisdiction of the judge – the judge is put
into the role of a US policymaker or person in Congress,
and they can’t decide issues beyond the United States.
That’s the best interpretation for debate, because it’s most
real world for roles the debaters could play in the future.
c. It’s non-reciprocal – we only get the United States, the
negative shouldn’t get more, and reciprocity is the only
objective way to decide fairness in debate.
d. Vote on it for fairness and ground.
3. Also, cross-apply our

27
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Private Military Contractors CP

1. Empowering PMC’s makes war more likely by making it


cheaper

2. Risk of PMC’s pulling out of a PKO is high

28
LC Debate RRF __/__

3. Because PMC’s are unregulated they can and will work


for dangerous groups. This creates a situation of
anarchy.

4. PMC’s cannot solve – Local backlash because of profit


motive prevents PMC’s from solving

29
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Consult CP’s (General)

1. Consult Counterplans are bad because:


a. Consultation allows abusive negative specifications –
calling process mechanism issues into question is infinitely
regressive – the neg will always find an implied background
condition, crushing predictability and education
b. The counterplan justifies everything – by mandating the
action of another country, the counterplan inherently uses
international fiat, relies on a condition, is conditional, and a
PIC.
c. Kills jurisdiction – the judge never knows what happens
post counterplan, no way to predict on a fiat level whether
the condition is successful. Policy makers can’t vote for a
maybe, one must choose plan or not, otherwise its beyond
your power of fiat.
d. No limiting function – any person, country, or organization
can be consulted. Even if there is no net benefit to the
specific consultation, one can always claim a generic
consult key to heg net benefit.
e. There is no solvency advocate for the counterplan - No
authors advocate discussing the affirmative's harm area
and solvency plans before enacting the legislation. The
lack of a solvency advocate should be a reason to reject
the counterplan.
f. The counterplan faces a solvency deficit - There is no
guarantee that the plan, or something like it, will be
enacted once the consultation takes place. Without this
guarantee, the case advantage functions as a
disadvantage to the counterplan.
g. Vote for fairness and jurisdiction
2. Perm – consult and then do the plan
a. There is no evidence that genuine consultation does
anything
b. There is no textual competition and if they win that the
plan would pass under the counterplan it just proves that
its plan plus.
3. Case outweighs –
a. Timeframe consultations take a long time, during this time
genocides and mass murders can occur around the world
which the plan could stop

b. By having to take the time to consult ________ you by into


the calculative framework that our third advantage

30
LC Debate RRF __/__

criticizes. The counterplan just shifts the burden of who


does the calculation to another actor.

4. <Insert Specific Solvency attacks here>

31
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Empire

1. Perm
2. Cross-Apply our third advantage - By endorsing the
alternative you are allowing the calculative framework
of politics to continue to exist and thus allowing
genocide to be continually justified. Reject this critique
and vote AFF.

32
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Colonialism

1. Perm –
2. Their alternative does nothing to solve for their own
impacts – All that the negative advocates is doing
nothing. They want you to not change the status quo.
This fails because by doing nothing you are not helping
to stop the genocidal impacts that they talk about, you
sit by and let them happen.
3. Cross-Apply our third advantage - By endorsing the
alternative you are allowing the calculative framework
of politics to continue to exist and thus allowing
genocide to be continually justified. Reject this critique
and vote AFF.

33
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Threat Construction

1. Perm – use the critical realist lens to pass the plan.


Realist problem-framing doesn’t de-justify decision
making. The perm allows for ethical political action
while resolving the kritik
George in ’95 (Jim, @Australian National University,
“Millennium” [Sunshine])

2. Lipschutz does not believe there is any viable


alternative to Realism at this state in time
Lipschutz, 2004 (Ronnie Lipschutz,
http://www.ndtceda.com/schoofs/Lipschutz.txt)
I don't think there is a single methodology that is useful. We live
in a world in which realism, liberalism and, yes, Marxism all have
something to say about IR and all can provide useful tools for
evaluation. Policymakers do not like complexity, and so they fasten
onto the analytical frameworks that provide simple and seemingly easy-to-
apply solutions. The result is unintended consequences and,
sometimes, foreign policy disasters.
3. The alternative does nothing – all that the neg asks you
to do is vote neg. This does nothing to solve for the
problems of the status quo which they criticize.

34
LC Debate RRF __/__

4. The anti-realist approach has led states to not act. This


has resulted in the denial of state sovereignty.

5. Cross-Apply our third advantage - By endorsing the


alternative you are allowing the calculative framework
of politics to continue to exist and thus allowing
genocide to be continually justified. Reject this critique
and vote AFF.

35
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Non-Violence

1. Perm – Do the plan and embrace the idea of non


violence
2. Their Alternative is nihilistic – They ask you to do
nothing as opposed to doing something about the
problems in the status quo. Change will never come in
the form of saying that the status quo is good, change
only comes by trying new ideas.
3. Their alternative links to their own kritik – they are
attempting to criticize a status quo problem yet their
alternative does nothing about it

36
LC Debate RRF __/__

4. Their alternative does nothing to solve the harms of the


status quo nor does it stop any of its own supposive
impacts.
a. Cross apply our third card from our second
Advantage, Campbell in 2001 – The warrants of
this card clearly state that the perpetrators of
violent acts against their own people will not be
coerced by anything less then a credible military
force. This means that these feel good ideas of
acting kindly to everyone won’t stop some leaders
from genocide.
5. Turn – Non violence is responsible for the failures of
Bosnia and Rwanda

37
LC Debate RRF __/__

6. Cross-Apply our third advantage - By endorsing the


alternative you are allowing the calculative framework
of politics to continue to exist and thus allowing
genocide to be continually justified. Reject this critique
and vote AFF.

38
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Statism

1. No link
a. We don’t support an increase in state power, under the
plan state power remains right where it is currently.
b. We don’t support anything in the status quo beyond our
plan.
c. Its not specific – none of their authors talk about the
creation of a RRF.
2. Their Alternative Fails
a. Weapons are still out there – if the military is gone, all their
gear will be laying around for some militant group to pick
up. This could include nuclear or biological weapons which
risk human extinction.
b. Corporations take control – if the state is gone, there will
be nothing left to check the power of large corporations.
Those will replace the state and be even worse because
they don’t have any responsibility to the people at all.
c. Loses basic service, like postage and police officers –
murderers continue to murder, robbers continue to rob,
and all kinds of bad things happen without the state.
d. Elites backlash – as the state is being torn down, the
people in power will see their control going and backlash
against the movement. This means lots of people will die
and the movement may be destroyed, so they wouldn’t
solve.
e. War will destroy the movement – large-scale wars
empirically lead to the rise of totalitarian states, which will
be more statist than we are now.
f. The state will reappear – there’s no evidence that they will
solve mindsets all over the world which favor a state
system, which means people will just create a new system
of hierarchy to replace the old one, so they solve nothing.
3. Perm – do the plan and [reject the state].
a. It doesn’t link – there’s no contradiction between getting
rid of an instrument of state military power and the state
system itself as well.
b. Perm solves all of the case and critique impacts, which will
outweigh any small link.
c. Perms are necessary to force negatives to prove a unique
link to the affirmative case – without them, the neg would
just have to identify a larger series of harms to aff didn’t
solve to win.

39
LC Debate RRF __/__

4. The idea of the state vanishing through revolution and


people refusing to accept it is just a pipe-dream – it
doesn’t fit the modern era. Rather, the state will
implode through overrregulation, like a system with too
much feedback – the plan’s action is a step in this
direction, and the combination solves best.
Baudrillard in 81 [Jean, “Simulacra and Simulation” p. 70-72]
Beaubourg cannot even burn, everything is foreseen. Fire, explosion, destruction are no longer the
imaginary alternative to this type of building. It is implosion that is the form of abolishing the "quaternary"
Subversion, violent destruction is
world, both cybernetic and combinatory.

what corresponds to a mode of production. To a universe of


networks, of combinatory theory, and of flow correspond
reversal and implosion.
The same for institutions, the state, power, etc. The dream of
seeing all that explode by dint of contradictions is precisely
nothing but a dream. What is produced in reality is that the institutions
implode of themselves, by dint of ramifications, feedback,
overdeveloped control circuits. Power implodes, this is its current mode of
disappearance.
Such is the case for the city. Fires, war, plague, revolutions, criminal marginality, catastrophes: the whole
problematic of the anticity, of the negativity internal or external to the city, has some archaic relation to its
true mode of annihilation. Even the scenario of the underground city-the Chinese version of the burial of
structures-is naive. The city does not repeat itself any longer according to a schema of reproduction still
dependent on the general schema of production, or according to a schema of resemblance still dependent
on a schema of representation. (That is how one still restored after the Second World War.) The city no
longer revives, even deep down-it is remade starting from a sort of genetic code that makes it possible to
repeat it indefinitely starting with an accumulated cybernetic memory. Gone even the Borgesian utopia, of
the map coextensive with the territory and doubling it in its entirety: today the simulacrum no longer goes
by way of the double and of duplication, but by way of genetic miniaturization. End of representation and
implosion, there also, of the whole space in an infinitesimal memory; which forgets nothing, and which
belongs to no one. Simulation of an immanent, increasingly dense, irreversible order, one that is
potentially saturated and that will never again witness the liberating explosion.
We were a culture of liberating violence (rationality). Whether it be that of
capital, of the liberation of productive forces, of the irreversible extension of the field of reason and of the
whether it be
field of value, of the conquered and colonized space including the universal-

that of the revolution, which anticipates the future forms of


the social and of the energy of the social-the schema is the same: that of an
expanding sphere, whether through slow or violent phases, that of a liberated energy-the imaginary of
radiation.
The violence that accompanies it is that of a wider world: it is that of production. This violence is
dialectical, energetic, cathartic. It is the one we have learned to analyze and that is familiar to us: that
which traces the paths of the social and which leads to the saturation of the whole field of the social. It is a
violence that is determined, analytical, liberating.
A whole other violence appears today, which we no longer know how to

implosive violence
analyze, because it escapes the traditional schema of explosive violence:

that no longer results from the extension of a system, but


from its saturation and its retraction, as is the case for physical stellar systems.

40
LC Debate RRF __/__

A violence that follows an inordinate densification of the social, the state of an overregulated system, a
network (of knowledge, information, power) that is overencumbered, and of a hypertrophic control
investing all the interstitial pathways. This violence is unintelligible to us because our whole imaginary has
as its axis the logic of expanding systems. It is indecipherable because undetermined. Perhaps it no longer
even comes from the schema of indeterminacy. Because the aleatory models that have taken over from
classical models of determination and causality are not fundamentally different. They translate the
passage of defined systems of expansion to systems of production and expansion on all levels-in a star or
in a rhizome, it doesn't matter-all the philosophies of the release of energy, of the irradiation of intensities
and of the molecularization of desire go in the same direction, that of a saturation as far as the interstitial
and the infinity of networks. The difference from the molar to the molecular is only a modulation, the last
perhaps, in the fundamental energetic process of expanding systems.
Something else if we move from a millennial phase of the liberation and disconnection of energies to a
phase of implosion, after a kind of maximum radiation (see Bataille's concepts of loss and expenditure in
this sense, and the solar myth of an inexhaustible radiation, on which he founds his sumptuary
anthropology: it is the last explosive and radiating myth of our philosophy, the last fire of artifice of a
fundamentally general economy, but this no longer has any meaning for us), to a phase of the reversion of
the social-gigantic reversion of a field once the point of saturation is reached. The stellar systems also do
they implode according to
not cease to exist once their radiating energy is dissipated:

a process that is at first slow, and then progressively


accelerates-they contract at a fabulous speed, and become involutive systems, which absorb all
the surrounding energies, so that they become black holes where the

world as we know it, as radiation and indefinite energy potential, is abolished.

41
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Nayar

1. Perm – combine the global action of the plan with


grassroots action of the alternative. Only by globalizing
our movement can we fight dangerous globalization

2. Perm solves – action must be global as well as local

42
LC Debate RRF __/__

43
LC Debate RRF __/__

3. The alternative fails – grassroots movements fail


because of common pitfalls

44
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Cap Bad

1. No link – we never advocate capitalism in the plan or


case, and we specifically state in our framework that
we do not support any parts of the status quo beyond
the plan being a good idea.
2. We only cause a small amount of their impact – the
state exists now, at worst the plan only makes it slightly
more statist. We don’t cause the entirety of their huge
impact, and our cause outweighs what is left.
3. Cross-apply the framework from under the 1AC – policy
impacts as a result of the plan are the only basis for
decision. Our personal actions and language do not
relate to the pros v. cons on a particular policy, so they
have no impact in the round. This means that in order
to win on the critique, they have to show how the plan
is worse than the status quo based exclusively off their
policy impacts.
4. Turn - US military power projection is used to expand
capitalist exploitation into unwilling countries and crush
non-capitalist emerging governments. We decrease the
spread of capitalism.
Parenti in 93 (Micheal, Ph.D. in political science from Yale University.
“Inventing Reality: the Politics of News Media” p. 163-164)
For decades, US officials and media commentators told us that the US global military machine, with its 300
major bases around the world, was needed to protect us from a Moscow-directed Red Menace. But
when the communist nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union dissolved into
anticommunist, pro-capitalist states, the US global military machine
did not dissolve along with them but remained largely intact. US leaders now maintained
that the world was full of dangerous noncommunist adversaries, who apparently had been previously
overlooked.
Any foreign power, even a noncommunist one, that tries to reclaim its own
development at the expense of multinational corporate investors –
risks feeling the crush of US power. American politico-corporate elites
have long been engaged in a struggle to make the world safe for
capital accumulation; to retain control of the markets, raw materials,
and cheap labor of poorer countries; and to prevent the emergence of
revolutionary socialist, populist, or even nationalist military regimes that
challenge this arrangement. For this, a global military machine is still needed. The
goal is to create a world populated by client states, ones that leave
themselves completely open to multinational corporate penetration, on
terms set by the penetrators.

45
LC Debate RRF __/__

5. Their impacts are empirically denied – we’ve had a


capitalist system for a long time, it hasn’t caused
extinction yet, so there’s no reason to believe it will in
the near future, so case impacts outweigh.
6. Perm – do plan and [reject capitalism].
a. It doesn’t link – there’s no contradiction between getting
rid of an instrument of state military power and the state
system itself as well.
b. Perm solves all of the case and critique impacts, which will
outweigh any small link.
c. Perms are necessary to force negatives to prove a unique
link to the affirmative case – without them, the neg would
just have to identify a larger series of harms to aff didn’t
solve to win.
7. The perm solves - Communism’s collapse has caused it
to integrate into the West and infect it with its own
values. The combination of communism and capital
gains the benefits of both and ultimately achieves the
goal of the communist revolution.
Baudrillard in 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 44-47]
It is clear that the ultimate deterrence has come from the East -no longer that of the balance of terror,
which, for forty years, prevented the event of atomic war from coming about, but of the imbalance of
terror, which prevents the confrontation itself from coming about. Deterrence by self-dissolution,
demolition, de-escalation, unilateral disarmament, auto-destabilization which completely destabilizes the
opponent - a strategy of weakness, an unexpected, unpredictable strategy even for the protagonists
themselves, but all the more effective for that. A strategy of disappearance, dispersion, dissemination,
contamination, virulence by fragmentation. For not only are the weapons, hardware and brains of the
former USSR going to turn up allover the world, but the model of disintegration is going to radiate out also,
more effective than a thousand atom bombs. Integral, totalitarian communism could
be sealed up and neutralized. Disintegrated communism becomes
viral; it becomes capable of passing through its own wall and infecting the whole world, not by ideology
or by its model of functioning, but by its model of dysfunctioning and of sudden,
violent destructuring. Certainly, we might ask whether this is still communism? Whatever the
answer, it is exerting an influence over the world which it could never
muster by arms or by thought, an influence over the whole world by
the event of its disappearance. In that sense, it might be said that it is triumphant, since
perfect communism, the fully realized communism, like the fully realized utopia, is the one which has
disappeared. In that sense, too, the consequences of communism's sudden self-dissolution are perhaps
even more incalculable than those of its appearance at the dawn of this century. Not through ideology, but
through the auto-da-fe of its own principles, the unconditional acting out of capitulation. In terms of ideas,
it had opened up a monolithic, totalitarian path; with its inverted acting out, it opens up the path of
dislocation for all structures and empires. The East will have victoriously countered
capital with capitulation.
It is Chernobyl that will turn out to have been the real starting point in this involuntary, but brilliant
strategic inversion which has destabilized the very concept of relations of force, creating out of this a
strategy of relations of weakness and completely changing the rules of the game. Up to that point, things

46
LC Debate RRF __/__

were frozen: no military, offensive acting-out was possible. Everything culminated in Star Wars, an
impossible scenario: orbital bombs are virtual; they do not explode. The only true bomb explodes - or
implodes - on the spot, by superfusion: Chernobyl, an accidental acting-out. It was the Eastern bloc that
exploded that bomb in its own heart and it was that bomb which, in the form of the first atomic cloud,
crossed the Wall and frontiers without encountering any opposition, inaugurating the fusion between the
two worlds by radioactive infiltration. So the initial explosion of the New World Order will indeed have come
from the East, and the contamination has passed from East to West. After Chernobyl, the Berlin Wall no
longer exists. Symbolically, it is therefore nuclear fusion, after all, which presides over the political,
transpolitical confusion of the blocs. By the suicidal accident of Chernobyl, the former USSR both admits its
impotence, its weakness, and at the same time passes the whole lot over to the West, obliging it to
manage the collapse, to manage a whole world gone bankrupt. That of communism to begin with, but
Up to now, communism had sought out the
soon, subtly, the world of capital itself.
weakest link in the capitalist chain. Suddenly, it discovered that it was
the weakest link and, by destroying itself, by cracking up almost
accidentally, it sent the other world hurtling to its doom, forced it to
deny itself as enemy, contaminated its defences, exported its own
economic and political suicide. The captive hell of communism found itself liberated. From
this point on, the barrier separating hell from heaven is liquidated. And in this case, of course, the
liquefaction is general, and hell always submerges heaven.
Solzhenitsyn writes (against Sakharov and his idea of having the two hostile blocs converge so as to unite
their mutual qualities): 'What can come of two societies afflicted with such redhibitory vices when they
come closer together and are transformed by the contact between them? A society twice as immoral.' The
dream of plurality is indeed precisely this: differences are to be exchanged as positive qualities. Whereas
what always wins out in the exchange of differences, in dialogue, is the exchange and addition of negative
qualities. Fusion always turns into confusion - contact into contamination.
We have an example of this today with AIDS and the fatal potentiality threatening every sexual encounter.
But the same goes for computers: maximum interconnectedness brings maximum vulnerability of all
networks (the trend now is towards stand-alone computers; it seems in fact that networks transmit viruses
even faster than information). Genetic confusion runs in this same direction. It is one of the aspects of the
principle of Evil that it always proceeds more quickly than Good.
So Solzhenitsyn, for his part objecting to this immoral confusion, is right and Sakharov wrong. But we have
nothing against vice and immorality. If they have to be increased in the confusion of the two worlds, then
perhaps that is better, all in all, than the austere, puritanical order of deterrence and the balance of terror.
Why not a world society which is entirely corrupt, a single empire
which is the empire of confusion, a New World Disorder which
combines the filterable viruses of communism with the discreet charm
of the rights of man and nature?

<<Insert Reform Good, more Perm Solves>>

47
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Support = Existing PKO’s

1. We meet – An RRF could help out in any existing PKO it


was needed in
2. Counter Definition –

3. Our counter definition is best – It comes straight from


the UN department of peacekeeping, and is therefore as
best on to the topic as it can be.
4. Limits – We place the best limits by only limiting cases
that directly support peacekeeping through specific
means, financing and personnel.
5. Ground – They haven’t lost any ground on us. Clash
checks this.
6. Framers Intent – The resolution was made to make us
as debaters question whether we should help or not
help peacekeeping operations of both the present and
future. Our plan does helps both current and future
peacekeeping operations.
7. T is not a voter – All we have to do is prove we are
topical which we have done, as a judge its time to look
to other issues to decide the round and not T.

48
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: You are FX Topical!

A2: A Spec

49
LC Debate RRF __/__

1. We specified that we work through the whole USFG


2. Clash checks – They have had plenty of stuff to run
against us, we obviously specified enough for them
3. CX checks – If they are going to cause such a fuss about
us not specifying our actor, why didn’t they just ask us
in cross-x?
4. No brightline on what is and isn’t specificying – They
have explained how indepth we need to go in order to
fully specify what agent we are use.
5. They are not entitled to the ground they want – There is
no rule, written or unwritten that says that the Neg HAS
to be able to run an alternate agent counterplan.
6. Requiring that one side have certain ground is infinitely
regressive – Them requiring that they be able to run
certain arguments justify’s us always being able to
counter kritik everything with empire no matter what it
is. This would lead to pointless debate and destroy all
educational value. Vote them down for suggesting such
a thing.

A2: F Spec

1. We don’t need to specifiy funding – by using fiat we try


and debate what would happen if the plan was put into

50
LC Debate RRF __/__

effect. Fiat allows us to skip the nuances of how the


plan gets implemented
2. Cross-x checks – If they really really wanted to know,
maybe they should have asked us in cross-x, being as
that is the time to clarify things about the case and all.
3. Clash checks – They ran other things against us besides
this, they have ground and still have a chance at
winning this round. Don’t vote on this argument.
4. They are not entitled to the ground they want – There is
no rule, written or unwritten that says that the Neg HAS
to be able to run a spending or tradeoff DA.
5. Requiring that one side have certain ground is infinitely
regressive – Them requiring that they be able to run
certain arguments justify’s us always being able to
counter kritik everything with empire no matter what it
is. This would lead to pointless debate and destroy all
educational value. Vote them down for suggesting such
a thing.

51
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: E Spec

1. We don’t need to specifiy enforcement – by using fiat


we try and debate what would happen if the plan was
put into effect. Fiat allows us to skip the nuances of
how the plan gets implemented
2. Cross-x checks – If they really really wanted to know,
maybe they should have asked us in cross-x, being as
that is the time to clarify things about the case and all.
3. Clash checks – They ran other things against us besides
this, they have ground and still have a chance at
winning this round. Don’t vote on this argument.
4. They are not entitled to the ground they want – There is
no rule, written or unwritten that says that the Neg HAS
to be able to DA on how it gets enforced.
5. Requiring that one side have certain ground is infinitely
regressive – Them requiring that they be able to run
certain arguments justify’s us always being able to
counter kritik everything with empire no matter what it
is. This would lead to pointless debate and destroy all
educational value. Vote them down for suggesting such
a thing.

52
LC Debate RRF __/__

A2: Khalizad
1. Khalizad wants increased support for UN PKO’s

53