Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Shell: Topicality – Mexico 399
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 1 “We Meet” 400
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 2 “Counter-Interpretation” 401
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 3 “Counter Standards” 402
1NC Shell: Topicality – Mexico 399A) Interpretation: Economic engagement is for helping countries stabilize their economies or get out of debt. Anti-crime assistance is security assistance, which is distinct. TARNOFF AND NOWELS, 04 [Curt, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and National Defense; Larry, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and National Defense for Congressional Research Service;” Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy,” 4/15, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf] Economic aid supporting U.S. political and security objectives. In FY2004, Congress appropriated $5.4 billion, 26% of total assistance, for five major programs whose primary purpose is to meet special U.S. economic, political, or security interests. The bulk of these funds — $3 billion — are provided through the Economic Support Fund (ESF), an aid category designed to advance American strategic goals with economic assistance. Since the 1979 Camp David accords and especially since the end of the Cold War, most ESF has gone to support the Middle East Peace Process. Since 9/11, much ESF has targeted countries of importance in the war on terrorism. ESF funds can be used for development projects (about 57% of the total in FY2004), or in other ways, such as cash transfers, to help countries stabilize their economies and service foreign debt (about 43% in FY2004). With the demise of the Soviet empire, the United States established two new aid programs which met particular strategic political interests. The SEED (Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989) and the FREEDOM Support Act (Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992) programs were designed to help Central Europe and the new independent states of the former Soviet Union (NIS) achieve democratic systems and free market economies. In FY2004, SEED countries are allocated $442.4 million while the NIS receives $583.5 million in appropriated funds. Several other global issues that are considered threats to U.S. security and well-being — terrorism, narcotics, crime and weapons proliferation — have received special attention from the foreign assistance program, especially since the war on terror began. Each of these programs provide a range of law enforcement activities, training, and equipment. In FY2004, the anti-narcotics and crime program (excluding alternative development activities) accounts for about $900 million in foreign aid appropriations — over half of which is for an Andean anti-narcotics initiative. Anti-terrorism programs add another $146.4 million, and weapons proliferation-related activities are funded at $250 million. B) Violation: The plan is not aid to stabilize Mexico’s economy. It is for crime prevention and security training. C) Standards: 1) Limits: Anything can be classified as “economic engagement” if the only requirement is that the plan spends money to do it. Limiting down to assistance targeted for economic development allows the Negative access to core links and a more reasonable research burden. 2) Topic Education: The center of this topic is economic cooperation and development. If the Affirmative can talk about security issues, every debate will be about nuclear proliferation and terrorism and we will never learn about foreign assistance. This defaults into topic repetition which is less educational than topic diversity. D) Topicality is a Voting Issue for fairness and education. 2NC Extension: A/t - #1 “We Meet” 4001) They do not meet. The 1AC Harms scenario makes it very clear that the Affirmative is designed as security assistance and not to stabilize the economy. They do not even read an economy argument in the 1AC! 2) Don’t allow them to argue that we’re blurring the distinction between Harms and Topicality here. We’re referring to their Harms scenario and evidence to make a reasonable point that their own case corroborates our claim that this case would be debated in the context of security issues in U.S. policy-making circles – for example, the Congress – not in the context of economic engagement. 2NC Extension: A/t - #2 “Counter-Interpretation” 4011) They do not meet their counter-interpretation because the plan is not providing economic assistance; it is helping to fight crime. That is closer to military assistance than economic assistance. 2) Our interpretation has a clearer bright-line: It is easy to determine assistance that goes to stabilize an economy than to figure out what “security goals” are. This proves our limits arguments because anything can arguably improve security. 3) Real-world context favors our interpretation. We contend that the affirmative plan would more likely be debated in a security-context, rather than an economic context. 2NC Extension: A/t - #3 “Counter Standards” 4021) Our standards outweigh: Limits are a pre-requisite for having meaningful debate. If the Negative never has specific links or research, we will have to rely on hyper generic arguments that are not well supported and are unstrategic. A debate world with very little case debate and very generic links is both less educational and less competitively equitable. 2) They are asking for too much Affirmative ground. Their interpretation opens the floodgates to all sorts of cases involving non-economic issues such as drugs, nuclear proliferation, and military training which would lead to an overly-broad and educationally superficial topic. MEYER AND SULLIVAN, 12 [Peter, Analyst in Latin American Affairs; Mark, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for Congressional Research Service; “CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations,” 6/26, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf] In addition to its support for economic, social, and political development efforts, the United States funds a number of security assistance programs in the region designed to address security concerns. Funding provided through the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account supports counternarcotics and civilian law enforcement efforts as well as projects designed to strengthen judicial institutions. U.S. assistance designed to counter global threats such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is provided through the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related programs (NADR) account. The United States also supports Latin American and Caribbean militaries by providing equipment and personnel training through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) accounts. The State Department manages the INCLE and NADR accounts. It also administers the FMF and IMET accounts, which are implemented by the Department of Defense. 3 Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|