Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

I'll be refuting my opponent's attacks going straight down the flow, starting with the a-priori topicality arguments. TOPICALITY - ITS A. Definition - I meet my opponent's definition. B. Interpretation - My opponent says that the US government must 'own' the military, despite the fact that the definition provided is not completely restrictive to 'own'. The definition also calls for being 'associated with' meaning that representation is also a ground on which we can base the type of military presence. The PMCs, being hired by the US government, clearly represent the US government in that they are acting for the government and in its interests. C. Counter-Standards 1. Fairness - To compete with my opponent's standard of limits, I offer fairness, meaning that it is clearly fair if it is within the domains of the resolution. The fact that my opponent made 5 attacks clearly shows that he is not too limited in the subject, and as for the ability of my opponent to research, it should be obvious that he had three days, after seeing the subject, to research. In finality, the fact that my opponent stated this could be completely based off no evidence shows that limits because of the ability to be researched should not stand. 2. Brightline - As I've shown, I'm obviously topical meaning that I am clearly on the topical side of the brightline. D. Topicality is a valid voting issue, though it is unreasonable to run it on the grounds of limits due to the ease of research over a period of three days on the internet. Remember, the opponent is only limited by his laziness. DISAD - PMC WITHDRAWAL A. Uniqueness - I'd like to make a point to mention that my opponent's own evidence state that these PMCs have a deleterious effect on the US Military. B. Link - This a point I'll break. My opponent's evidence is clearly from 2008, and if you'll refer to my Harms, you'll see that my evidence from 2010 clearly shows the PMCs specifically in Afghanistan to be a negative influence on not only the US Military, but the US's interests. This is an excerpt from the report: "The Committee's inquiry revealed squandered resources and dangerous failures in contractor performance, including untrained guards, insufficient and unserviceable weapons, unmanned posts, and other shortcoming that directly affect the safety of other US military personnel. And yet, US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Armed Contractor Oversight Directorate (ACOD) reported that, as of May 2010, they were aware of more than 26,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan. According to the ACOD, 90 percent of those personnel are working under either US government contracts or subcontracts." This clearly shows the troops in Afghanistan to be uniquely dangerous to US interests, and that they are in no way vital to military operations, and that they in fact push against US military operations. C. Brink - Because the link was broken, this brink will not occur. The PMCs will actually allow the US Military to be able to MORE EFFECTIVELY complete their mission, giving more reason to believe my plan itself will be the only way to avoid the impact my opponent stated. D. Impact - My opponent has presented an impact of not enough troops to fill in the PMCs positions. In reality, my evidence in my case pointedly shows that the PMCs don't do their jobs and makes the jobs of the US Military more difficult. Only through the removal of these PMCs can we avoid this impact, because the removal will actually result in more work getting done, as I've shown. DISADVANTAGE - IRANIAN PROLIFERATION A. Uniqueness - I'd like to simply not that my opponent's assertion that Iran will proliferate within the year is unfounded and we have no reason to assume it's likely. This, however, is not my refutation. B. Link - My opponent states that a reduction in PMCs will cause a lack of troops leading to a loss of control of the Islamic Republic. This attack obviously disregarded my specific harms, the ones that stated the specific PMCs in Afghanistan fail to do their jobs. This failure to do jobs also refers to failure to protect, meaning their only necessity in such a revolution would not be completed. The fact that they directly endanger US Military troops also shows that they would be a force against the US rather than with it. The only logical solution would be to remove the PMCs. Don't forget that US Military will still remain and that PMCs in Iran itself will still be present. C. Impact - If such a revolution were to happen (remember that it's an unfounded assertion), then the PMCs in Afghanistan shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way. If this was to happen, our only hope of stopping the result would be an effort made without the resistant force of the Afghan PMCs. D. Impact - Once again, consider the turned DA. Only through my plan can we hope to avoid this most terrible impact. COUNTERPLAN A. Plan-text - Regulation? By who? How much will it cost to get this regulation? What is considered regulation? How much oversight is necessary to insure the obedience of these PMCs? These are the questions that can neither be known nor answered. We see that the presence of the US Military itself can't stop these PMCs from doing their 'dirty deeds' and there's no reason to assume that government official presence will in any way stop these disobediences. In fact, the assertion is unfounded and completely ridiculous. Evidence will certainly be needed for such an outrageous claim. D. Net-beneficial 1. PMCs provide essential jobs that the regular military doesn't have time for. This would be an interesting point if it actually applied to the troops in Afghanistan. The SASC report showed that, as cited earlier, a majority of the PMCs actually failed to report to post, do their job, and were mostly untrained for the sometimes simple jobs they were assigned. The fact is that the Afghani PMCs simply don't do their job and shouldn't be allowed to continue existence. Harms E specifically shows that the Afghan PMCs are different and obviously don't apply to my opponent's evidence which refers to 'normal' PMCs. 2. PMCs do the dirty work with no dangerous political backlash. This is an almost moot point in itself. When the Blackwater incident itself occurred, both Blackwater and the Federal Government were blamed, and rightly so because it was both of their faults. My opponent is basically saying that when the PMCs make mistakes, we can use them as a scapegoat. The past has shown that doesn't work anyway, and even so that goes against American ideals of justice and honesty. 'Dirty work' that's wrong shouldn't be done at all. The use of them as a scapegoat certainly doesn't outweigh my advantages and aren't worth the continued existence of my harms, or that impacts that will happen of the turned DAs. 3. Afghanistan running low on troops. This point is one of ignorance. The continued existence of PMCs will result in a higher troops count, but that's Argumentum Ad Numerum (the logical fallacy in which it states just because something has higher [or lower] numbers it is better [or worse]. I've specifically shown these Afghan PMCs to be bad and my opponent has failed to provide any evidence or valid logic as to why the opposite is true. There will be more troops, but this is worse because the PMCs actually push against the US Military. Seeing as the PMCs out number the US Military, this will result in us working backwards, something that is most certainly not a benefit. MONOPOLIZATION KRITIK For space's sake, I'll merely summarize a basic refutation. My opponent is stating that the PMCs are a necessary opposing force that works against the military and US government, creating a system that limits the government's decisions. This system of checks an balances is already present within our government's decisions (House, Senate, President) , leaving another unnecessary.