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 peacekeeping operations.3 The Directive

defines "command" of United States 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

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.

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

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 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
The apotheosis of simulation:

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 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
atomic arsenal itself a hyperreal form,

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

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
war, like the Trojan War, will not take place.

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 suffices to control all the violence and potential conflicts around the world.
any more than floating capital has a real referent of production) 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.
power -- and especially U.S. military power. 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 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 world combined could not dent American maritime supremacy. Napoleon's
Royal Navy was equal only to the next two navies --

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 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
States was "the indispensable nation." 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

__/__

2. <insert politics of illusion>

argumentation won’t be tolerated and to discourage future violations.

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. 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. 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. Vote on it for fairness and ground.

b.

c. d.

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. 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. 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. Vote on it for fairness and ground.

b.

c. d.

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 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. 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

2. Perm – consult and then do the plan

3. Case outweighs –

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-toapply 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. 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.

2. Their Alternative Fails

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" world, both cybernetic and combinatory.

Subversion, violent destruction is 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 field of value, of the conquered and colonized space including the universal-

whether it be 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 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.
analyze, because it escapes the traditional schema of explosive violence:

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 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.
not cease to exist once their radiating energy is dissipated:

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,

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
more effective than a thousand atom bombs.

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 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
soon, subtly, the world of capital itself.

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

__/__

2. 3. 4. 5.

effect. Fiat allows us to skip the nuances of how the plan gets implemented 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. 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. 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. 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful