CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

Thank you for posting something. GROUP ARGUMENTS 1) My opponent did not follow th guidelines listed in the first round. Cross apply the statement that "If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it." He never posted a specific implementation method making comparison impossible. 2)This is bad for debate and overall is a voting issue. If an agreed upon debate format is set, following it is essential. 3) By not setting the implementation method, my ground is restricted. I can no longer run specific links nor can I run arguments debating the topical-ness of the implementation method. Actually, the simple fact that he doesn't have one shows that he is not topical at all. Also a voting issue. 4) Flow through both the proliferation and nuclear war costs. Both of these go dropped. These alone outweigh everything mentioned in his last speech. ============================================================== FEM ADV: He claims that I must uniquely solve for feminism. 1) I proved that I have a legitimate way of solving for feminism. If he thinks that the status quo will solve then it is his job to prove that. 2) Had he created a topical implementation method, he would not have solved for feminism. 3) My evidence discusses what is happening in the status quo. CON has not presented any reason as to why this would change. Feminism Advantage stands. ============================================================== Heg. adv: US presence is a war on humanity – threatens all countries on earth 1) Refusing to prefer my implementation method won't solve any of the problems mentioned in this evidence. One more country won't brink any impacts, and in fact, the more specific evidence to the problem, presented by me, indicates that refusing to act will in fact be the end of the earth. 2) We have been doing this for 50 years and no visible impacts have been seen. As the global hegemony, it is natural to secure the world. 3) Sure we may 'threaten' the other countries... because we own the hegemony title. However, there is no evidence suggesting that we will actually act on this threat. Just because there is a threat, doesn't mean that any harm will happen. We can very well occupy other countries AND threaten them (just with our massive power) while still harming no one. 4) This risk, overall, doesn't even come close to the impacts that I present. Preventing Iranian proliferation is key to preventing other countries from proliferating. I guarantee that the 'threat to other countries' will be exponentially increased if we let that happen. ============================================================== Exercises in military and economic power go hand-in-hand. Imperial power expands through the presentation of US goals as universally good. 1) First of all, congrats on your quality copy and paste technique :D 2) How does this at all compare to proliferation, nuke war, and destruction of international treaties? 3) The evidence specifies feminism which I solve for. 4) U.S. intervention ("imperialism") is critical to world peace - there is no substitute. ---Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, '03 (jean Bethke, "Just War Against Terrorism" pg. 169) "The heavy burden being imposed on the US... does oblige the US to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to whether it can intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harm... This approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda, [and] Bosnia... The possibility of international peace and stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely... on American power... this fact... is inescapable... America's fate is tied inextricably to the fates of states and societies around the world. If large pockets of the globe start to go bad... the drain on American power and treasure will reach a point where it can no longer be borne." 5) There is no specific link to imperialism. ============================================================== Imperialism K: 1) I think what my opponent is trying to say is that we should sacrifice the security of the entire planet, perhaps sacrifice the planet entirely, in order to make a subjective society better. A worldly problem must be dealt with before an subjective issue. 2) His impacts are temporary. Extinction is forever. 3) PERM: There is no reason why we can't invade Iran and conform to the imperialism ideals if it is actually such a detrimental thing. At the very least I have shown how the minute amount of imperialism that I cause is well worth it. 4) CON causes just as much Imperialism in the status quo as I do. The only debate therefore is if the I increase it too much. There is no evidence showing that I push imperialism over the brink enough to cause a unique impact. 5) He has evidence but quotes nothing. Giving a name and a date doesn't allow you to say whatever you want. 6) Imperialism methods aren't always bad. http://www.hoover.org... "Even the mildest imperialism will be experienced by many as a humiliation. Yet imperialism as the midwife of democratic self-rule is an UNDENIABLE GOOD. Liberal imperialism is thus a moral and logical scandal, a simultaneous denial and affirmation of self-rule that is impossible either to fully accept or repudiate... If democracy did not depend on colonialism, we could confidently forswear empire." ---This shows that if the ends are good, even questionable means are reasonable. But seriously... I'd take imperialism any day versus nuclear proliferation across the middle east region and ultimately nuke war. ============================================================== Too many reasons to vote PRO to have a legitimate conclusion. My first group of arguments alone are reason enough to vote PRO. Good luck in your next response.