Intelligence Sharing means what?

November 18th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

A debater running naval coop asked about what exactly intel sharing means. I wrote her this response…

Ooh, ask the intelligence major.

Types of intelligence:
SIGINT — Signals intelligence includes communications interceptions (landline, cells, radios, etc), radar, any kind of tracking, electricity and wave interceptions (infrared, emissions, etc). This type of intelligence tells you where the pirates are, what they are talking about, recognizes coordinated conversation right before strike, tracks individuals and equipment… 30,000 people at the NSA have this as their full-time job, plus thousands of other people in other states and countries, plus any AWACS aircraft or intelligence equipment on-site (on a ship or nearby base). This type of intelligence is HUGE.

HUMINT — Human intelligence is basically your traditional “spying”–it turns humans or plants humans who feed information. Most classified data is classified because of the source (who could be one of the only ones to know the info) rather than because of the info itself. This type of data would be “x group is led by Y person who is idealogically bent this way, has z affiliations, and wants to do some piracy in A on B date using C weapons.”

OSINT — Open source intelligence means non-classified sources. Basically, as a debater you are an Open Source analyst because you are researching on the web what is going on. Looking at what the IMB posts is an example of this type of intelligence.

MASINT — Measurement and Systems intelligence does exactly what it sounds like… analyzes the firepower, internal mechanics, molecular structure, etc of weapons and stuff. You probably aren’t going to get a huge amount of help from MASINT for your routine piracy. But they may be helpful for combatting the pirate/terrorist container nuke type of threat.

IMINT — Imagery intelligence uses people on the ground to satellites in space to take sweet pics of things and analyze exactly what is going on (like that scene in the one spy movie where they figure out that only a certain ceiling fan is like that and can only be in one of four places). So satellite pics of terrorist/pirate bases, pics of your evil pirate terrorists, etc

Each country has their own intelligence programs and collects this type of info. Usually intelligence agencies don’t even share this with each other that much b/c of how sensitive the source/info is.

CIA — HUMINT (mostly)
NSA — SIGINT (mostly)
DIA — All types
NGIA — IMINT
NRO — IMINT, MASINT
DNI — Organizes all this and tries to break down barriers, plus OSINT
FBI — HUMINT/SIGINT (primarily domestic, though the foreign branch is growing)
DHS — All somewhat, but mostly relies upon sharing from other agencies plus sub-organization intel units (CBP, ICE, etc)

Then all the military branches have their own intel service, Treasury does, Energy dept. does, and DEA does.

I think that’s your intel organizations.

So to share compartmentalized info (in the “piracy/terrorism” type compartment) means we see more of what is about to happen before it happens (India and U.S. telling each other what radar/AWACS, SIGINT, IMINT sees means more units can better respond and be prepared in time), know whose financial assets to freeze (HUMINT from U.S. helped by info from India = Treasury dept. worldwide action), track the perpetrators after an event (U.S. tracks, India intercepts/arrests), know what weapons they’re using (India reports weird purchases/actions/missing items, so does U.S.), and then use your brain to think of more types of info you need to combat piracy (maybe even research this!) and how that would help U.S./Indian units respond.

Additionally consider that India might share info with Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, while U.S. probably gains info from Pakistan that India has no access to (for obvious reasons)–but Pakistan is a local source of the piracy threat. So there’s another way our intel sharing can help each other to more info.

Finally, just stare at a map for a few minutes. You’ll see some arguments pop out at you by studying geography.
Indian Ocean Map

Speaking of piracy, there are about 5 big headlines on it at Drudge today: http://drudgereport.com/

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Brief Thoughts on the LD Topic

November 9th, 2008 by Lisa Alexander

I was recently asked to critique an LD debate case. This was my first foray into the LD resolution this semester so I really got to examine it with fairly fresh eyes. Here are a few thoughts I have on things I have noticed at this early point in the season.

First off, the term “when in conflict” is extremely important. This means you must identify the conflict in your case. For instance, both pragmatists and idealists would prefer that Iran not have a nuclear bomb. However, the conflict comes from their basic worldviews. Idealists in political theory believe in the value of diplomacy and incentives to accomplish a policy objective. Pragmatists would accomplish the same policy objectives through sanctions and maybe military embargos. You see, there is a definite conflict in worldview and a great argument on which is better. In many cases, both the pragmatist and idealist worldviews will not be in conflict. For instance, justice is a goal of both sides, but they both utilize the same basic means to achieve that goal (juries, jails, etc.). Now, you might get a worldview conflict within justice if you debated punishment vs. rehabilitation of criminals. Or another example is our education system - one side (idealists) says that we need to abolish the public education system and start over. The other side (pragmatists) says we need to reform it brick by brick. Both sides have the same goal, education for children but the policy approaches are completely different. This should help you start identifying the “when in conflict” part of the resolution when you look at situations. 

A second problem I see is that many students essentially think of idealists as “good” and pragmatists as “bad.” Think of the idealist who believes abortion should be stopped because killing is wrong and yet that idealist bombs an abortion center. Or think of a terrorist who believes that others should convert to his religion and if they don’t, they are already “dead.” These terrorists are certainly upholding an idealist worldview. That terrorist sees no problem with suicide bombings. The pragmatist looks at both of those issues and doesn’t understand. There are better ways to stop abortion using practical steps. There are better ways to deal with people than suicide bombings. Neither side understands the other’s viewpoint.  

The third problem I see with basic understanding of this resolution is the “ends/ideas” vs “means/actions” type of thoughts. This is a red herring. Don’t fall into this trap. An idealist does try to accomplish his goals. He does take steps to do so. These steps may even be practical but that doesn’t make his worldview pragmatic. A pragmatist also tries to accomplish his goals and may even use moral means to do so, this doesn’t make him an idealist in outlook. We are discussing something complicated – how different people, different cultures, different political persuasions – view the world. You must keep that in the top of your thoughts. 

And finally, let’s discuss a balanced negative. I do not recommend a balanced negative approach for several reasons. The first reason is education. It is important to try to understand and place yourself in another’s worldview. I can’t begin to emphasize how important this is. You need to be able to recognize the basic, underlying worldviews involved in this conflict. This is highly educational. It might mean you lose a few rounds you shouldn’t, but you will be a better, more educated person. Winning isn’t everything. Secondly, a balanced negative is a copout. It is a lazy way to win that doesn’t require as much work or thought. And thirdly, a balanced negative is a weak position to have against a strong team. A good team will have very well reasoned arguments for idealism. In a balanced negative, you still have to defend pragmatism but you are also basically agreeing with their case. A good affirmative can absolutely turn this against you.

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Brief Correction re: Coca Cola

November 4th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

Dear Ethos users, there is a slight correction I need to make. Joseph Mollath of California helped with the Coca-Cola case mandates and I completely forgot to give him credit. This deserves a fun story about it all… [insert those weird swishing sounds on audio-books when someone tells a story]

Back at PHC debate camp this past summer we were practicing CX. I (Isaiah) read a case and then piles of people took turns CXing and we’d practice doing it over and switch places until we had sufficiently beat each other up. Well, I decided to use the Coca-Cola case first, so I read it and then let this guy Joseph Mollath be the first to CX. It sounded something like this:

“So you’re going to replenish the water tables?” (Joseph)

“Yes” (Isaiah)

“How will you be filtering that water?”

“…through strainers? No seriously, I don’t think rainwater comes filtered”

“And where do you plan to get the millions of gallons of water?”

“hmmm…snow from the Himalayas? I don’t know. They’ll just have to figure it out.”

“Are you aware that you have to use a coal filter and even then it takes 20-80 years to replenish water tables?”

“Haha, no, I’m not. And you’re making this up.”

“Haha, no, I’m not — I’m the reigning California science champion in water table replenishment. 2 years running.”

“::meep:: Okay, you win…ALL IS LOST!”

So, you see, considering Joseph’s expertise, I asked him to help me fix the mandates for the actual putting of in Ethos [an improper grammatical structured sentence that sounds like Yoda is called an anastrophe, just fyi]. He did, its there, I forgot to give him credit :-(

Please forgive me Joseph.

Posted in debate | 4 Comments »

What inherency USED to be — Dr. Srader

October 29th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

Dr. Srader, professor at Northwestern Christian University, “What Inherency USED to be,” October 29, 2008

I often tell people that debate is a sport. A day full of debates is physically exhausting, and there are far more things about debate that are physical in nature than newcomers might think, from proper delivery, to efficient file-pulling, to confident nonverbals during cross-examination. But one of the most sports-ish things about debate is the number of lessons that good sports movies offer to debaters. I’m a fan of Miracle, and Rocky, and a lot of others, but my very favorite is Hoosiers. It’s got an endless list of good lessons in it, but at the top of that list is the thread that runs through it from start to finish: fundamentals might not be exciting, but they win games.

When Gene Hackman shows up for the first basketball practice, he finds the players already on the court, being encouraged by last year’s assistant coaches to take as many shots at the basket as possible. His first act is to kick out the assistant coaches and tell them they’ll no longer be needed. He then sets about teaching his players how to play far more intelligently, but with a huge dose of delayed gratification. They learn to pass the ball four times before taking a shot. They learn to think carefully about defense. They practice endless drills that sharpen their reflexes and teach them how to position themselves in any situation, instantly, fluidly, without stopping. And they work themselves to a frazzle, building up their conditioning so that they’ll never run out of energy before their opponents do.

I hate to give away the ending, so I’ll just say this: it works.

Hackman’s approach isn’t a hit at first, because it’s so old-fashioned and so unfocused on what the players enjoy about the game. The debate version of that is the stock issues. Around the time I was born, policy debate was still all about the stock issues, no matter whether you were a newcomer or a national champion in waiting. Presumption was overwhelmingly negative, and negatives won most of their debates. Most rounds included at least a couple of disadvantages, but the biggest share of speaking time on both sides was devoted to a back-and-forth on the affirmative’s need, made up of their significance and inherency, and their plan, with its accompanying solvency arguments. Today, most argumentation textbooks still call this approach a need-plan affirmative. It’s the oldest of old-fashioned setups for a policy debate.

Newer perspectives have come along and displaced the stock issues. In the 1970s, a group of college debate coaches named Allan Lichtman, Daniel Rohrer and Jerome Corsi proposed that debaters and judges ought to participate in a thought experiment that consisted of role-playing actual legislators. Instead of thinking atomistically about the stock issues and answering each one, they should think holistically about the desirability of the plan, and they should do so using the language and perspective of members of Congress. Shortly after, two more debate coaches named David Zarefsky and J. W. Patterson suggested that instead, debaters and judges ought to consider themselves social scientists, treat the resolution as a hypothesis, and treat the back-and-forth between affirmative and negative as an experiment to test it. These new ways of framing the debate struck most debaters as far more challenging, stimulating and exciting than stock issues analysis, and soon only the dinosaurs applied the stock issues to debate.

The funny thing is, many many top debaters go on to law school, and there they find stock issues approaches everywhere. In murder trials, the prosecution has to demonstrate motive, method, and opportunity. In church-state separation cases, judges apply the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, which has three prongs. Other examples exist throughout every area of law. With all the money, power, safety, and even human lives at stake in court proceedings, lawyers and judges still find the stock issues method, which borrows from classical stasis and topoi approaches, to be a perfectly suitable framework, and evidently better than the alternatives.

And actually, of the stock issues, significance and solvency have aged well. Affirmatives like to pile their significance high, because that gives them a hope of outweighing the disadvantages that so many folks treat as the turning point of the debate. Negatives like debating solvency, because it feels to them like attacking the plan. It feels like what they should naturally be doing. But that leaves inherency, and inherency has not aged well. It’s widely treated as a bit of a joke. For many debaters, “going for inherency” is shorthand for being desperate, for having no strategy at all. A judge who votes on inherency must be stodgy and dour, and insist on making debate no fun at all for the debaters. (You might be surprised to learn that the Harvard debate coach, a man from Abilene, Texas, votes on inherency. He’s thought of as an excellent, cutting-edge debate mind, in great demand as a judge, but he reminds people at every opportunity that he thinks inherency is important, and will vote on it.)

I’ve taken too many paragraphs to set this up, but in what remains, I want to describe what inherency used to be, why it was regarded as so very important, and why it’s still important today, even though too many of us treat it as though it isn’t. If I may be blunt, our approach to debate is terribly irrational, because we gloss over a critical piece of the puzzle when we give short shrift to inherency.

Too many debaters are willing to say inherency is just the answer to the question, “Has your plan been passed yet?” If it hasn’t, then you’re inherent. Some will widen the question to “Is the present system solving the problem?” But under this view, if you win significance, you win inherency as well, because if the problem still exists, then obviously the present system hasn’t solved it. What is the view of inherency that isn’t a simple yes-no, or redundant with significance?

Back in the day, significance, inherency and solvency were all tightly woven together, and inherency was the issue that linked significance to solvency. Inherency asked, “What is the root cause of this problem? What is it about this problem that resists solution?” We as human beings don’t typically ignore serious problems, especially if simple solutions are available. So if this problem persists, why is that? What makes it not a simple problem to solve? If we could answer that, then we knew why the present system failed. Then, when it came time to consider solvency, stock issues analysis judges wanted to hear why the affirmative’s plan was carefully constructed to address that root cause, that complication, that made the problem persist.

Think of going to see a doctor. You tell the doctor that you have a headache that hasn’t gone away for six months. The doctor says “Have you tried aspirin?” Yes, you have. “Have you tried Tylenol?” Yes, you have. “Advil?” Yes. “Aleve?” Yes. “Oxycontin?” No, you haven’t tried Oxycontin. “Well, there you go!” says the doctor, and writes out a prescription for Oxycontin. “We’ve found a plan that hasn’t been adopted yet, so Oxycontin it is.”

What’s wrong with that picture?

Wouldn’t it be nice if the doctor had examined you, run some tests, and actually attempted a diagnosis? Wouldn’t you expect the doctor to figure out what’s wrong with you, and explain to you what’s happening, to explain why you had this headache? If, for example, your headache is caused by a brain tumor, wouldn’t chemotherapy be a better solution than a pain reliever? But absent a diagnosis, chemotherapy would obviously be a really, really bad idea.

So you might ask the doctor, “Do you have a diagnosis of what’s giving me this headache?” If the doctor said “That’s so old-fashioned! No doctor actually diagnoses anything anymore. We just say what your symptoms are and give you a pill for those symptoms,” then I bet you’d go look for a doctor who wasn’t a quack. But that’s exactly what we do when we blow through the stock issues and ignore inherency! Our solvency debates are incredibly shallow and incomplete if we haven’t bothered to consider what it is that keeps the problem from resolving itself. Why do we have this problem? What keeps it alive? How can we go beyond describing it to diagnose it? It’s not nearly as exciting an issue as disadvantages, but when it comes to actual rational decisionmaking, it’s far more important.

Another example: if you know nothing at all about cars, and your car one day starts acting up – brakes don’t work, steering is too loose or too stiff – you can just take it to a mechanic and say “fix it,” which is an invitation to the unfortunately large number of unscrupulous mechanics to cheat you. Or, you can learn enough about how a car works to have at least a rough idea of what’s wrong with it, so when the mechanic proposes a solution, you’re equipped to say yes or no to it. If all you do is notice the problem, and then accept a glib-sounding description of the solution, but you don’t bother to find out what keeps the problem alive, then you’re not armed with the information you need to make a rational decision to lay out your hard-earned money for an expensive repair.

What wins debates is far more about what other debaters are doing, and what judges expect, than about what logic dictates. Is it possible that one of you could pull off a Hoosiers, go back to basics, get really good at explaining the importance of inherency, and beat everyone in sight? The funny thing about debate is that doing what no one else is doing is often a recipe for success, because judges are suckers for what they haven’t heard a zillion times, especially if it’s done well, and debaters are very easy to wrong-foot when you catch them with the unexpected. It might be that in your region, in your league, vigorous debates about inherency are the norm. If so, I think that’s an incredibly healthy thing. If that’s not what you see in your debates, then you’ve got an opportunity to make some noise, and to point out that debate may be a game, but it doesn’t have to be a game that’s so divorced from reality that it surrenders to absurdity.

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Great Video

October 28th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

Here is a good video to study of the Patrick Henry College debate team. All debaters are NCFCA alumni who competed at nationals this past year.

In order of appearance:

Alan Carrilo

Joanna Griffith

Gregory Escobar

Zach Enos

(Oh, and the back of my head…purple)

A couple things that stick out to me:
– This video demonstrates why negatives should stick to ONE major philosophy and fully prove it and make all DAs center around it. Watch as two or three negative philosophies emerge.
– General knowledge of history and foreign policy is crucial (props to Joanna)
– Alan Carrilo is an amazing speaker

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Admin Note

October 21st, 2008 by Lisa Alexander

Our vision was that all who visited our blog could easily ask us debate questions without dealing with registration. I am now asking for registration in order to have the ability to leave comments. The problem with not having registration is that we have been spammed by unsavory characters. As I can’t avoid skimming over some of this material while moderating the site, I am hoping that asking for registration will help with this issue. If this is a problem for anyone, please let us know via email. If this doesn’t work to stop the unsavory material, I’ll change it back and try to fix it another way.

Thanks for understanding,

Mrs. A

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

A Free Trade Question

October 8th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

A reader commented that Ethos does not contain a specific negative to a free trade agreement with India. While this is true, we don’t necessarily have a specific negative brief at this time, there is plenty within Ethos that you can use to start building your negative brief against a free trade agreement.

I first suggest you turn to these four Generics:


Solvency: Corruption/India’s Business Climate is Oppressive. 506

Increased Economic Cooperation – CON.. 559

Globalization Kritik/Disadvantage. 583

Prez Authority CON.. 626

Fiat power this year only allows us to fiat US government action. We can’t fiat that the Indian government will do anything. This limits the US to a unilateral free trade agreement. India has many barriers to trade (which you can find starting on page 506 of Ethos). These barriers range from corruption in government to specific laws against foreign companies to legal issues such as a lack of property rights in India to labor issues to tax issues. Trade isn’t free trade if it is all one-sided plus if these barriers remain in place, how likely is it that the US will invest at a faster pace in India (especially under this tight economy)? Also, look at the generics in Ethos on both globalisation (free trade is part of more globalisation) and on economic cooperation with India.

Another thing to consider is plan advocacy. In other words, does the affirmative team have an expert advocating that unilateral free trade with India will work? Plan advocates are important as they often give a complete “case” for their advocacy. In other words, they will often discuss the problems in the status quo, give areas of policy that should change, and then discuss the results of that change. You then need to back up your advocate with other experts that agree or support the idea or good generics that support the overall idea (someone advocating unilateral free trade even if not with India). A case that doesn’t have this sort of advocacy is much easier to tear down as the supporting evidence is often out of context (the author might not support the actual policy change or might support different changes). So, look for plan advocacy with FTA cases. And as always, when you flow a case the most important aspect to flow are the citations. Get the citations, look up the context. If there is no plan advocate, then being very familiar with the affirmative’s sources is a wonderful way to refute a case as many times, the sources have nothing to do with the actual mandates of the plan.

That should be enough to get you started on debating negative against a free trade agreement but watch for a more specific brief in upcoming Ethos updates (the first update will hopefully be ready in December).

Research suggestions for you: research “trade barriers” and “barriers to trade” and “commerce barriers” in regards to India and you will find some good material saying how hard it is to trade in India. Additionally, you will find that trade with India is growing steadily (good inherency argument) as barriers are removed. I especially think you should look up the PSAG, which is this joint group of businesses and government reps that are helping make U.S.-India trade policy.

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Questions from Region 8…

October 6th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

We got an email from a debater in Region 8 with several pertinent questions, answered below:

Hey Ethos,
Had a couple questions for you:

Is it a good idea to run multiple alt. causes? Seems like it would weaken your stance by provided an ultra-broad area to debate…
What generic briefs are there to run against the obscure cases with no NEG brief in ethos? i.e. Coca-Cola, Pre-emption…
And finally, how would one argue a stance that the judge comes into the room pre-prejudiced against? For example, outsourcing is good?

The generic briefs are great this year!
Thanks,

Is it a good idea to run multiple alt. causes? Seems like it would weaken your stance by provided an ultra-broad area to debate…

First off, let’s talk about the angle at which alternate causality argument can approach: When you are negative, I personally think the strongest way to run “alternate causality” is as a solvency barrier. From this perspective instead of “this harm has more causes” you end up with “this plan has too many barriers to solving the problems laid out.” While more nuanced and less effective in a net-benefits environment, it often helps demonstrate impact to your argument. The best possible way to run alternate causality is to cross apply to both the harm and the solvency. And then, if you are particularly clever, you can tie in alt causes to Disadvantages as brinks or impact chargers. A common technique is to say “here is an alternate cause to their great harm, by supporting their plan which purports to solve such harm you are MASKING the underlying causes and dooming the harm to actually perpetuate.” This is called a “masking disadvantage” and requires skill to run effectively.

Now on to the question: Essentially, whichever way you choose to use the alternate causality, it tends to mitigate the affirmative case even more greatly and make it matter less the more alt causes you use. Additionally, if running the masking disadvantage, the more causes masked, the more impact you have. But remember, alternate causality is primarily defensive mitigation argumentation and not offensive disadvantage material. If you’re choosing disadvantage vs. alt. cause, go with the disadvantage because then you’re saying their case is BAD instead of “doesn’t do enough.”

Let’s take an example from last year, say an internal enforcement case against immigration (CLEAR Act or something). One common alt cause argument was that lack of border security means even if you succeed in throwing undocumented aliens out, they’ll come right back. Imagine if you also ran that even if you solved border security, the other alternate cause is the ease with which you can overstay a 3 day visitor/tourist visa (which is how much of illegal immigration occurs anyway). Then you’ve got two big solvency barriers that you can impact with an argument of “outside first, inside second.” As inherency it is not as strong as this solvency position.

But lets try it as a disadvantage. Wasted Resources is the disadvantage:

Link: Affirmative case spends many more resources on internal enforcement of illegal immigration

Brink 1: There are enough other crimes to solve with the same resources (local cops)

Brink 2: They’ll keep coming back via lax border security

Brink 3: They’ll keep coming back via visitor visas

Impact: Non-ending expenditure of resources

Impact: Real crime ignored

(Obiously there are responses to this disadvantage)

I personally like the alternate causes as this disadvantage rather than as solvency, but I think it is clear that having both makes a deeper argument against the aff case.

What generic briefs are there to run against the obscure cases with no NEG brief in ethos? i.e. Coca-Cola, Pre-emption…

That’s a good question and deserves a couple of notes. First, whenever you are up a creek, your first thoughts should be: counterplan, topicality, kritiks — in that order. Some of my most enjoyable debate rounds have been the ones where we had no evidence against an obscure case and came up with many logical/general knowledge based arguments. Much of this is up to your skill and mind, but you’ll also find some help in Ethos.

We do actually have a generic meant specifically to be used against preemption doctrine repeal, and the reference to that (and some strategy against preemption doctrine repeal) is found on the very last page of Ethos. The “Solvency/Generic: India’s Foreign Policy is Independent” brief in the generics section really helps to show that the U.S. repealing of the doctrine of preemption will not cause India to follow suit. Of course, I constructed the (very extra-topical) case with that in mind, basically risking extra-topicality debate for that argument–saying it is important to repeal the doctrine anyway.

So if the generic doesn’t work (though we should definitely de-link the case from achieving anything in regards to India), let’s first think counterplan: if we counterplanned a more effective version of the aff case, we’d actually end up with…the aff case (since it is extra-topical). This should remind us to run extra-topicality arguments. Additionally, we can counterplan that the U.S. adopt the “Just War Theory” which you would argue is competitive because instead of doctrine repeal, you’d actually be replacing doctrine. This has permutation issues though, so let’s think topicality…

The case does not at all change policy towards India since the policy being changed is in no wise directed towards India. India was not even mentioned when the U.S. policy was crafted.

Kritiks…I’m not really seeing an obvious one.

So next you go to logical argumentation: Solvency. Here I like to first think of Alt Causes (ironic), and I’m thinking of several to the idea of U.S. legitimacy:

1) We’re overstretched militarily, so we are viewed with suspicion

2) We act unilaterally, so we have undermined legitimacy

3) We pretty much mock international institutions

4) We have already acted exceptionally, and with more than just the preemption doctrine

5) Most of the world viewed us as the hegemon before the doctrine of preemption as much as after

There are 5 good solvency barriers showing that legitimacy will not be restored to the U.S. because of the doctrine of preemption. Is this a good time to whip out a masking DA? Sure! By focusing on the doctrine of preemption, which really is something we’ve DONE all along just not articulated (Bosnia, Kosovo, Missile Strikes against Osama in 1998, etc), we are keeping ourselves from looking at those other things that make us lose friends and appear to the world as imperial (Free Trade, Unilateral Sanction, Unilateral Action, Military Deployment, Hypocrisy when it comes to domestic policy, etc).

The Coca Cola Case. Here you will find less in Ethos, but plenty from your general free market/government classes. The U.S. is regulating business in a way that it shouldn’t and can’t with success. You can also approach it from the standpoint of India needs to enforce such things itself and the solvency argument that such a company could simply re-register as an Indian corporation and be impervious to U.S. law.

Go to the Water Treaty aff backup to find more about “Water Wars” and the drought facing India. You’ll see the problem is more widespread than Coca-Cola and again find plenty of alternate causes (Pakistan, China, drought, overpopulation, poor resource management), such that quantification of the Coca-Cola problem is actually quite small and perhaps masks the larger issues (water shortage coming!).

Okay, counterplans…Simply that this should be our policy worldwide with any business that does business in the U.S. That counterplan would help demonstrate the non-topical nature of the aff case as well as be a counterplan they could not disagree with. Then it becomes a disadvantage war–you give them a disadvantage that the CP doesn’t have. Let’s see…what’s different…yours is fair. Bingo, they say we have such policy in regards to India BUT NOT anywhere else–this is inconsistent, unfair, and really just sends the wrong message. The aff case has this problem, the neg CP does not as it is worldwide.

But I’ll admit, I’d probably be going back to topicality on this one too. How is this case a change of policy towards India and not towards U.S. businesses (and Coca-Cola)?  Basically they’ve done something they’d like to do for a plan and mashed it into the India resolution.

And finally, how would one argue a stance that the judge comes into the room pre-prejudiced against? For example, outsourcing is good?

Tactfully.

The point of debate is to learn to persuade others, even those that disagree. While you still get the occasional person that is completely unwilling to judge arguments in the round but inserts own opinion, you have a unique opportunity to educate from a different perspective. If you think you are REALLY far out there, then insert a very subtle and polite “we urge the judge to decide between the arguments presented, not on previous knowledge, knowing that this is an intellectual activity in which sides are assigned rather than chosen.” But if you can’t believe the argument you are making, I say don’t run it and find something different that you can argue convincingly.

I, for one, think you have to take more time with the outsourcing good argument, but its not impossible.

A. Realities of the world today (use The World is Flat type material): We are globalized, there are international businesses, we will either outsource jobs or insource foreign workers to do the jobs–either result the same.

B. Such outsourcing tells us we have to now equalize and perhaps raise their standard of living and even lower ours a hair (heaven forbid) in order to effectively compete in a world marketplace.

C. Note the alternative (consequence of opponent team thinking): in today’s world, the only way to prevent outsourcing is to prevent international demand/trade. To basically be isolationist sticks us back to the 19th Century while the rest of the world passes on.

D. Nobody likes changing the status quo, but it is inevitable and we need to not just roll with the flow, but ride the wave. Thus, we should embrace the inevitability of the future, even if we hate it.

Here you’ve never said you like outsourcing, you just have said look at the alternatives and you’ll see we’ve GOT to accept it.

Hope this helps.

Posted in debate | 1 Comment »

Defending the Piracy Case…

October 2nd, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

So Tim is doing an exhibition debate using the piracy case and emailed me asking for analysis of the neg’s position. I thought it a good exercise in demonstrating how to quickly make responses as you hear them, so below are what I would actually say in a round (and have written down on my flow as the arguments were being made) just in terms of mitigation/refutation, before going to my points and emphasizing the advantages of the case and doing some impact weighing. Here’s the neg, following is the commentary.

SIGNIFICANCE 

False link: Most piracy does not occur near India.* 98% of piracy occurs in Southern Hemisphere. That doesn’t mean 98% of it occurs near India. Most pirate attacks off Somalia, right?  

Smita Nair, Indian Express, September 19, 2008 

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Gulf-of-Aden-most-dangerous–IMB/363053  

Barely 48 hours after an Oil tanker with an 18-member Indian crew was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden off the Somalian coast, the International Maritime Bureau has declared the region as the most sensitive and dangerous waterway surpassing the otherwise notorious Nigerian stretch.

Associated Press, September 8, 2008 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g19PCHKSShe7ljDYxNT5tj9__BdQD932E2IG6   

Somalia, which has had no functioning government since 1991, is the world’s top piracy hotspot.

No way of accurately estimating piracy’s impact 

Munich Re Group (international insurance company), September 22, 2006  

http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-05053_en.pdf  

The loss suffered by national economies as a result of piracy is difficult to estimate. The estimates presented by different observers are too far apart to allow a serious statement. Besides, the basis underlying the figures is very rarely cited. We do not wish to share or add to such speculation and will therefore abstain from giving an estimate of our own here. At first glance, the overall loss attributable to piracy appears slight in relation to the total value of goods transported by=2 0sea. 

INHERENCY (Link to Topicality. There is no significant change). 

Indian-American naval cooperation is firmly established (204) 

India and US working closely on maritime cooperation (204)

India Report by John E. Carbaugh, Jr., June 2, 2003

http://www.usindiafriendship.net/arc hives/viewpoints/carbaugh-062003-1.htm  

The two countries have conducted numerous joint military exercises in the last couple of years. These have included Indian paratroopers working with their U.S. counterparts in Alaska, joint military airlift operations in India, and American and Indian military personnel taking part in the Shanti Path 03 peacekeeping exercises in India. Perhaps the most promising area of military cooperation has been in the naval sector, with the Indian and U.S. navies conducting a number of exercises that included anti-submarine training, and combating piracy. Indian naval ships also mounted escort patrols for U.S. ships through the Malacca Straits in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. American warships now routinely refuel in Chennai and Mumbai.

India already working with regional neighbors to counteract piracy

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., (Senior Research Fellow), Lisa Curtis (Senior Research Fellow for South Asia), The Heritage Foundation, May 30, 2008 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg2139.cfm  

Likewise, India is working with its regional neighbors to counter the various maritime crimes (e.g., drug trafficking and piracy) that threaten some of the country’s shipping routes. 

Regional cooperation is successfully reducing piracy in South Asia 

Steve Herman, Voice of America, Global Security.org, May 21, 2008 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/05/mil-080521-voa10.htm  

Unprecedented sea and air patrols by Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia in the Strait of Malacca, a busy global shipping choke point, have led to Southeast Asia no longer being regarded as the world’s most dangerous piracy zone. ReCAAP Deputy Director Teo says data sharing mong Asian militaries and maritime law enforcement agencies has also made a difference. “That also gives the reasons for certain actions to be carried out, particularly in law enforcement and preventative actions,” he added. As a result, the region has seen a downward trend in pirate attacks over the last five-year period.

India is already building up her naval power (209)(See Money spent on new mi litary capabilities could bring drinking water to millions) 

India is happy with the security of South Asian waters 

Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee on India’s Strategic Perspectives, Address at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, June 27, 2005 

http://www.usindiafriendship.net/viewpoints1/mukherjee.htm   

Our approach to it is essentially cooperative. We now have coordinated maritime patrolling arrangements with Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka. Our Navy has been providing hydrographic assistance to Indonesia, Seychelles and Mauritius, and maritime security cover for Summit Conferences in Mozambique. The Coast Guard and Navy have been active in anti-piracy, disaster relief, and environmental management and response operations. The Navy has also been conducting joint exercises in the Indian Ocean with the US, France, Singapore, Russia and Oman amongst others. In 2002, we provided escort operations for high value US naval assets passing through the Malacca Straits. The Indian Navy holds the MILAN Naval Exercises off Andaman and Nicobar islands every two years. On the security of Malaccas, we are comfortable with its management by the littoral states and would be happy to join a regional initiative, if necessary, and if the littoral states are comfortable with our participation.

SOLVENCY 

India’s intelligence agencies are not structured to investigate terrorism (BBA, 233) 

Indian agencies don’t even share intelligence among themselves (BBA, 233) 

Cooperating with the US on terrorism is not necessarily good for India* (BBA, 233)

Somalia: Presence of several navies has not deterred piracy 

India Express, September 24, 2008 

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/No-pact-with-Somalia–can-t-take-action-against-pirates–Antony/365650  

Replying to queries on the Navy’s request to tackle piracy, the minister said the Gulf of Aden has become a “very dangerous place” and despite the presence of several navies, 27 incidents of piracy have taken place in the region. “Major naval powers such as US, France, UK and Canada are already carrying out joint patrolling there but despite their presence these incidents are happening. As many as 27 ships have been hijacked in the area despite the patrols,” he said. 

Shipping companies, not the navy, must tackle piracy

Barbara Surk, Associated Press, September 23, 2008 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gulf_us_navy_piracy  

The international shipping industry must take on more responsibility to protect vessels against pirate attacks and kidnappings in the dangerous waters of Somalia rather than rely on the U.S. Navy, the commander of the 5th Fleet warned on Monday. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said the U.S.-led coalition patrolling the Gulf of Aden simply doesn’t “have the resources to provide 24-hour protection” for hundreds of commercial vessels passing daily through these dangerous waters between Somalia and Yemen. Gortney’s comments come as heavily armed pirates are increasingly preying on shipping in the area. 

Anti-piracy efforts have to focus ashore, not just at sea 

Barbara Surk, Associated Press, September 23, 2008 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gulf_us_navy_piracy  

British navy’s commander in the Middle East, Commodore Keith Winstanley, acknowledged in a telephone interview with The Associated Press a “considerable spike in destabilizing activity,” with smuggling, trafficking, hijacking and crew kidnappings becoming “an extremely lucrative business.” Wistanley warned that the presence of coalition destroyers, frigates and an aircraft carrier alone won’t stop the piracy. “We do what we can, but the solution to this problem is clearly not at sea, but ashore in Somalia.” He did not elaborate. 

Global shipping industry: Lack of clear rules of engagement could harm anti-piracy efforts 

International Chamber of Shipping & International Shipping Federation, News Release, September 17, 2008 

http://www.marisec.org/news/pressrel.htm#08-17%20Sept

The solution, the industry stresses, is for more nations to commit naval vessels in the area and, crucially, for them to engage effectively, actively and forcefully against any act of piracy, and to intercept and bring to justice the criminals in order to re-establish safety and security to one the world’s most strategically important seaways.  Only interception and arrests, as permitted by UN Security Council Resolution 1816, will tackle the problem, with ships currently being attacked almost every day, often involving kidnapping and hostage taking, with pirates using automatic weapons including rocket propelled grenades. In particular the [global shipping] industry believes there is currently a lack of political will on the part of governments to give military forces the clear rules of engagement they need, notwithstanding the mandate provided by the UN Security Council in June. 

Military aid ineffective: No way to ensure it is used properly (Pakistan) 

Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, November 5, 2007

http://www.truthout.org/article/us-military-aid-pakistan-misses-its-al-qaeda-target  

Despite billions of dollars in U.S. military payments to Pakistan over the last six years, the paramilitary force leading the pursuit of Al Qaeda militants remains underfunded, poorl y trained and overwhelmingly outgunned, U.S. military and intelligence officials said. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf cited the rising militant threat in declaring a state of emergency on Saturday and suspending the constitution. But rather than use the more than $7 billion in U.S. military aid to bolster its counter-terrorism capabilities, Pakistan has spent the bulk of it on heavy arms, aircraft and equipment that U.S. officials say are far more suited for conventional warfare with India, its regional rival.

DISADVANTAGES 

1. World reaction 

US anti-piracy efforts versus terrorism = self-fulfilling prophecy: World turned off by interventionist stance in the oceans 

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar (president of International Movement for a Just World, which is based in Malaysia), Tehran Times (Iran’s leading international newspaper), “The Politics of the Straits of Malacca”, September 15, 2008 

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=177888  

Though piracy is a problem, the littoral states have down a fairly good job in curbing it. If the U.S. involvement is directed at warding off Al-Qaeda type terrorist attack, it is quite conceivable—given the situation in various countries – that the United States’ presence itself will attract Al-Qaeda militants to the Straits. It is only too apparent why the Straits of Malacca are important in itself to the U.S., which is making a desperate bid to sustain the Washington-helmed unipolar global system that emerged after the end of the Cold War. If anything, its desire to contain the rise of China has increased the strategic significance of the Straits. As a littoral state, Malaysia has the sovereign right to protect the Straits — a right that is based upon international law. This is why Malaysia has for some time now insisted that non-littoral states should not seek to control either directly or indirectly the management of the Straits of Malacca. The Indonesian government has adopted a similar stand. Of the littoral states, it is only Singapore that would like the United States to play a more important and interventionist role. 

US-India partnership could provoke China, Pakistan

Ingolf Kiesow (Retired Asian ambassador, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Swedish Defense Research Agency) & Nicklas Norling (Assistant Editor of China and E urasia Forum Quarterly, MA degree in Political Science), Central Asia - Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program (transatlantic, independent research and policy center), “Rise of India”, January 2007

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/2007/0701India.pdf   

There are, in fact, many factors of strategic importance to the U.S. that constitute arguments against the new partnership with India. China may for instance be provoked to pursue a more active policy to block U.S. efforts in South Asia, making the subcontinent a new battle-ground for political competition. President Hu Jintao’s journey to India and Pakistan in November 2006 may be seen from this perspective. Pakistan may react against the U.S. favoring of India as reason for closer military and economic relations with China. Pakistan has entered into a joint venture with China for the production of the next generation of jet-fighters, ha s asked China to honor an old agreement to build a nuclear reactor in Pakistan, invited China to invest in a new harbor at Gwadar in Baluchistan (which may serve as a military base for China in case of conflict), and to build a pipeline for natural gas from Gwadar to Xinjiang. These initiatives are all signs that Pakistan may already be trying to develop closer strategic contacts with China once

again.

US-India military ties should be loose (to prevent an arms race) 

Ingolf Kiesow (Retired Asian ambassador, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Swedish Defense Research Agency) & Nicklas Norling (Assistant Editor of China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, MA degree in Political Science), Central Asia - Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program (transatlantic, independent research and policy center), “Rise of India”, January 2007

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/2007/0701India.pdf   

Development towards a real Indian-U.S. military partnership could have a dramatic consequence, and take the form of an arms-race and a tendency toward a new Cold War. Given China’s efforts to appear as a friend of Muslim nations, the consequences could be drastic, in particular if the U.S. war on terrorism is intensified. For the time being, ideological differences speak for the least dramatic of these alternatives, namely a loose partnership between India and the U.S., with both partners trying not to provoke Chinese fears of a military encirclement and an ensuing counter-reaction from China.

A. Frightens India’s neighbors 

India’s neighbors fear dominance by a strong India and will seek assistance from the outside (208)


Impact: lost benefits of South Asia regional cooperation on terrorism, proliferation and human security problems (209) 

B. Angering Pakistan 

Pakistan has justified fear of US-Indo game of encirclement (BBA, 234) 


0A

Pakistan participates in Task Force 150 

US Dept. of Defense, April 24, 2006 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15376  

Pakistan today became the first regional country to command a combined task force in the Middle East in the war on terror. Pakistani Rear Adm. Shahid Iqbal received command from Dutch Commodore Hank Ort during a ceremony aboard the HNLMS De Zeven Provicien in the harbor here. Iqbal will command the force [Task Force 150] for the next six months. 

2. Diverts money away from more pressing needs 

Poor use of money: Money spent on new military capabilities could bring drinking water to millions (209)

The False Link doesn’t prove it at all. Besides Somalia being in the Indian Ocean or nearby, just having somewhere else have MORE piracy doesn’t mean you don’t. Plus, yours is more qualitatively significant (trade coming through there), plus yours is where we DON’T have a meganational task force working.

Inherency…exercises /=/ joint cooperation for extended time. In fact, that evidence helps YOU. Plus they’re contradicting their first point–why conduct exercises for a non-existent problem?

India working with regional neighbors is WHY you’re cooperating with them. They can go where our ships can’t but they don’t have over the horizon radar and tech that we do.

India being happy helps YOU b/c it shows they’ll be willing to help. Quote your sources from India saying they are actively seeking more partnerships.

Solvency: by intelligence sharing, we can help them decompartmentalize. No evidence in the BB will actually mention piracy or our case.

Somalia evidence contradicts previous evidence saying that cooperation regionally has helped reduce piracy :-P

Somalia is getting worse but not as bad as it could be. Plus, what other alternative is there to trying to combat piracy? huh??

Yes, HUMINT and SIGINT of U.S. can help at shore counterpiracy ops.

Read the non-underlined pieces of evidence in Rules of Engagement. It says they need more cooperation, contradicting and proving your solvency. Plus, we already have RoE as U.S. forces and at worst this is a non-unique disadvantage. Also press them for India or U.S. specific evidence–its probably referring to African countries. If you look up higher in the article, you see this is true “carried out with increasing frequency against ships in the Gulf of Aden, by pirates based in Somalia.”

This article also later contradicts their overall point and recommends your plan: “The shipping industry believes that the only effective action is for the naval forces to engage actively and forcefully, as they are better armed, trained and resourced than those committing acts of piracy.  The shipping industry does not underestimate the bravery or good intentions of those manning warships in the region, but the current patrolling and hands-off approach is clearly making no difference.  They argue that while the naval forces are indeed ready to tackle the piracy problem, they need a clear signal from governments, through unequivocal rules of engagement, to do so.”

Money evd is talking about Pakistan to whom we just give blanket anti-terrorism money. Not so here.

DA card 1: you’re not actually going into the Straits because you can’t. You’re giving AWACS and over-the-horizon radar intel to India to allow them to more effectively do so. Thank you neg for both showing that Straits need policed and that India CAN go there b/c of cooperation with Malaysia and Singapore and Indonesia.

Second DA evidence is almost abuse its so poorly cut. Has nothing to do with your case. Plus, non-unique since we already police the world’s oceans and waterways. Plus impact outweigh with your harm/adv evd (there was no impact given to ‘angering’ China or Pakistan)

DA card 3 contradicts their inherency point about U.S. and India already cooperating–thus non-unique and defeated since the arms race isn’t happening. Plus evd only says “could” have and gives no real impact. How can you have an impact when China and Pakistan are already nuclear weapons states? What’s an arms race when they’ve got those and are already building up their armies? :-P

Frightening India’s neighbors is contradicted by their points about regional cooperation. Plus there’s no impact. We’re fighting freaking piracy!

“Fear of India” by Pakistan isn’t a DA! None of these have actual IMPACT. Who cares if there is “fear”? Pakistan and India are practically at war all the time, of COURSE they fear each other.

Resources: Glad they bring this up. Turn. Cooperation allows LESS resources to do MORE. If we communicate with their forces and share shifts with their patrols, then we need LESS resources and combat piracy more. Plus impact outweigh: Piracy is SUPER SUPER SUPER SUPER important.

Posted in debate | No Comments »

Well, what do you think?

September 30th, 2008 by Isaiah McPeak

Those many of you who have received Ethos already, if you have a second we would greatly appreciate your comments here or in an email (ethosdebate@gmail.com). General comments and things to improve/things that are good are great, plus we’re particularly looking for any glitches there might be as occasionally happens when you first release an item.

In the meantime, here is a video I took of semifinals at nationals 2008. Reynolds/Schlaudraff vs. Cole/Payne (sp sp sp?)

Posted in debate | No Comments »

« Previous Entries