Our elite Mastership Sourcebooks for NCFCA and Stoa will release soon! Check them out here!

So we all know that alternate causality arguments are a powerful refutation. But sometimes we forget the similar argument, which is that there is an alternate solution to neg disadvantages that mean the DA shouldn’t be considered.

It isn’t run as often because if you really take the theory to the extreme, you’re basically permuting a counterplan that doesn’t exist. (If this didn’t make sense to you, don’t worry about it)

So you are running abolish CAFE standards as a case for the reasons that CAFE causes death and has not resulted in any measurable environmental benefits. The negative argues against those points but also brings up this disadvantage:

Oil. Your plan increases the use of oil, which means more money to the ME, which means evil regimes have more money to fund terrorism. Of course you can refute this directly, arguing there hasn’t been terrorism against the U.S. in the homeland for a long time and neg didn’t show propensity for such (no brink), that we are already giving tons of petro dollars so it wouldn’t make a difference (non-unique), that neg didn’t show that the quantifiable increase is UNIQUELY needed for there to be a terrorist attack (uniqueness/threshold), and that there are alternate causes to terrorism (this is where we will now focus).

WHENEVER you run an alt. cause argument as NEG you should think immediately “is there a counterplan I can run that addresses the root causes?” What I’m advocating in this post is that you do something similar on aff. If you can find yourself making an alt. cause refutation to a disadvantage, pretend to perm a non-existent counterplan πŸ˜‰ In English: argue that ANOTHER SOLUTION can be made to address the real causes of the disadvantage, and the degree to which your case causes OTHER bad policies to be negatively impacted shouldn’t negatively implicate YOUR policy proposal.

One example then back to our CAFE case.

When I was debating an immigration policy resolution in college we often hit the argument “but more immigrants would qualify for welfare and cost us tons of money!” Our responses included standard refutation, but we actually made bank on this response: don’t blame a bad welfare system on your immigration policy. If the welfare system would function that way, then guess what, the WELFARE system is in need of change too. Don’t not pass our case just because welfare needs reform… of course it does.

(Theoretically there are some problems here, but it is a legitimate real life position. If you were in an intense theory round, then you’d probably need to argue masking-DA style that your plan would REVEAL more fully the problems in welfare and intensify the need for reform there as political pressure mounted from dissatisfied Americans or the welfare system broke. You don’t really want to go here, but whatever.)

So back to CAFE. What do I want to argue as my alternate cause + alternate solution arguments?

1. Money is only a means. There has to be an alternate cause to terrorism directed at the U.S., or anyone, than “hey, we’ve got the dough, let’s go kill some people.” Given that, money actually is somewhat irrelevant. It may intensify terrorism, but it doesn’t CAUSE terrorism. 9/11 didn’t need millions and millions of dollars to be a successful operation. There must be real motive behind terrorism.

2. The U.S. causes terrorism. It’s no coincidence that Osama went halfway around the world to attack the U.S. and NOT England, Nepal, Australia, China, or Antarctica. He had cause to attack the U.S. What cause? These are our alternate causes:

a. Historical greivance. The U.S. funded, armed, and trained the Mujahadeen (and Osama) during the Russia-Afghan war. When the bloody war left Afghanistan in ruins and the U.S. gave only a pittance of reconstruction assistance, it was painfully clear that Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen, and Osama personally had been USED by the U.S. for U.S. ends and now we didn’t care about them and wouldn’t do right by them.

b. Interventionism. The U.S. dictates from its high horse exactly how Middle Eastern states should run their countries, even if our principles are antithetical to their principles. Especially sad since the U.S. can’t remember the basis for its own principles.

c. Export of Secularism. What is the U.S. exporting to the Middle East as it tries to “engage” and “trade” with the Middle East? What is the end result in the U.S. of democracy without moral base? Britney Spears, MTV, and Victoria’s Secret. Secularism, “human rights” for homosexuality, cohabitation, and public displays of lewdness (er, speech). A religious man facing this from a country that also played him as a pawn in the Cold War would definitely be willing to kill to prevent the Great Satan from exporting its culture to home.

(so far so good…. but neg still is going to argue that you increase the terrorism at the bottom line, no matter the alternate causes, because you give MEANS to these CAUSES)

Therefore, 3. The terrorism disadvantage’s only conclusion is ANOTHER SOLUTION. Their disadvantage underlines the need for a modification in our method of fighting terrorism, which thus far has been increase the causes of terrorism in the first place, intervene even more, and wipe out the livelihood of Afghanistan farmers (Opium) despite the legal opiates market. Afghanistan’s length and lack of success as an operation demonstrates that our plan has nothing really to do with the problem; our counterterrorism strategy is broken and must change. Don’t punish our great idea with a bad counterterrorism policy. You can AGREE 100% with negative’s disadvantage here but still vote affirmative because CAFE standards are NOT the place to fix our terrorism strategy!

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: