Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

NEG BLOCK! (after this round, only 5,000 characters per 'speech') TOPICALITY - ITS A/B. My opponent does not meet the definition because PMC's are not associated with the USFG. Association between one another can not be created because of contracting. He argues that PMC's represent the US, but he never argues that the contracts that they sign establish an association. C1. Turn the fairness standard because it is irrelevant how much time I have to research due to the fact that I instigated a debate and it is UNFAIR to argue outside of the topic I have established. PMC DISADVANTAGE A. Uniqueness- My opponent makes no attack on uniqueness. My evidence showed that PMC's are essential to military policies. My evidence does also show that PMC's have some "deleterious", but at the point where he concedes that PMC's are essential for military operations and his plan offers no solvency to this point, that explicitly triggers the link. Not to mention that military policies far outweigh the risk of impact verses the minute PMC harm. B. Link: READ HIS QUOTE... It says nothing about the PMC's being unnecessary. There is a reason that the US uses them in EVERY war and that is because they are essential to winning the war. Cross-apply my initial brookings evidence that states the multiple tasks that PMC's do. They are not necessarily the most efficient, but they get the job done that the highly trained US military doesn't have time for. C. Impact: This argument fails for 2 reason. 1) He says that the brink fails because the link fell just making this an extension of the link debate making this point moot. 2) The debate is not about how effective we can be on a certain mission but rather how efficient we can be in the ENTIRE WAR. Therefore, my opponent wins that he can more effectively win a 1 battle situation but he can not solve better for a 100 battle war. D. Impact: 1) My evidence specifies that we "can't go to war without them"... No where does my opponents evidence say that PMC's are so counterproductive that this idea is untrue. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has specified subjective examples and applied them objectively. The fact is that if we pull out PMC's, we might as well pull out the entire army because the stability of Afghanistan would be destroyed and 8 years of war would be put to waste as the Taliban re-takes control of their former home. IRAN DISADVANTAGE Additional Evidence: A. Uniqueness- Iran will proliferate within the year, creating the most probable scenario for Middle Eastern war, widespread proliferation, terrorist attacks and Israel first strikes. Charles S. Robb, former Democratic senator from Virginia, Charles Wald, retired general and air commander "As Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium grows... current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States... a nuclear weapons-capable Iran could be contained. Instead, it would set off a proliferation cascade across the Middle East, and Iran would gain the ability to transfer nuclear materials to its terrorist allies... An Iran emboldened by nuclear weapons clearly might overstep its boundaries, pulling the Middle East and the United States into a treacherous conflict. An even more likely scenario, however, is that Israel would first attack Iranian nuclear facilities, triggering retaliatory strikes by Iran and its terrorist proxies." C. Impact- Without the capability to contain Iran, nuclear war would break out. http://coteret.com... "The war could be long,"... "its length could be measured in years"... "(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire... which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support... will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah... If the current tension between Turkey and Israel rises, Turkey may also permit, or turn a blind eye to, arms shipments and Iranian volunteers that will pass to Syria through its territory and airspace. Israel will find it very difficult, politically and militarily, to intercept the passage of forces through Iraq or Turkey. The participation of Iranian forces will make it very difficult for the IDF to occupy areas from which rockets are being fired. "Along with these steps, Iran may launch a massive terror campaign against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad... The Iranians will fire missiles at population centers in Israel, and will rebuild the nuclear facilities that were bombed, in such a way that will make it very difficult to bomb them again.... Half a million dead, a million wounded, two million refugees and displaced persons, economic damage estimated by the Iranian government at about $1-trillion—more than twice the value of all Iranian oil production in 70 years of pumping oil... "The ramifications are clear and harsh." D. Impact- Un-contained Iranian nuclear proliferation alone causes nuclear war. Proliferation causes global nuclear war. Utgoff 02 (Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses., Survival, vol. 44, no. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 85–102 "Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions") "Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible." E. Link: US Military presence in Afghanistan is key to containing a nuclear Iran. http://www.irantracker.org... "While current deployments are placing a strain on U.S. military assets, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan offers distinct advantages in any possible confrontation with Iran.The United States can bring in troops and materiel to the region under the cover of the... Afghanistan conflicts, thus maintaining a degree of strategic and tactical surprise. The United States can also more easily insert Special Forces and intelligence personnel into Iran and protect key assets of our regional allies... Such plans and deployments would also be part of an effort to demonstrate to the Islamic Republic that it would lose more than it would gain by becoming nuclear weapons-capable." GROUP DA ATTACKS: The only other assertion that my evidence does not answer is that PMC's will stand in the way. 1) Even poor troops can help containment. If we made it clear that our presence is key to saving the world, any humans natural instinct will take over to defend us. 2) Cross apply my evidence that specifies PMC's and their important jobs. COUNTERPLAN A. All of those questions he asserted is answered in the first 5 words (the USFG). Further specification would link to a OSPEC argument that I did not want to deal with, my plan text is legitimate. D. Net-beneficial Group: First I'd like to point out that he does not provide for the essential jobs that they provide. Nor does he realize that subjective examples do not outweigh my objective example. Finally my plan text solves for all of the problems that he cites. LET'S MAKE THE MOST OF THESE PMC's. I ONLY ACCEPT YOUR INHERENCY THAT INHERENCY THAT THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS, BUT PULLING THEM OUT ONLY MAKES THE MATTER WORSE. MY COUNTERPLAN SOLVES THE INHERENCY AS WELL AS BOTH DISADVANTAGES. MONOPOLY KRITIK The system is not in place everywhere. Not to mention that corrupt decisions can still be made, and that it's a third party that is essential for a