1ar baby shuks

8/10/2019 1ar Baby Shuks

1/9

We meet

Plan doesnt fiat the coast guard non-military in the plan text checks

W/M - Coast Guard icebreakers have a nondefense research role

NRC 7 (National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment ofU.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)After World War II, the Lighthouse Service and Steamboat Inspection Service were assimilated into the U.S. Coast Guard. Polar operations continued throughout the Cold War

and into the 1970s. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers assisted summertug-and-barge sealiftsto Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s as the AlaskaPipeline was built and s upported several years of testing in Maritime Administration studies of co mmercial icebreaking ship design. Even before the end of the Cold War,

icebreakers were increasingly in demand for nondefense research in the Arctic . Throughout its history, the

U.S. Coast Guards mission has expanded in response to the changing needs of the nation. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard provides unique benefits

to the nation because of its distinctive blend of military, humanitarian, and civilianlaw enforcement

capabilities. To serve the public, the U.S. Coast Guard hasorganized its responsibilities into five fundamental roles :

(1) maritime safety, (2) national defense, (3) maritime security, (4) maritime mobility , and (5) protection of

natural resources , and a unique mission in ice operations in which icebreakers play a key

role . These roles may again be altered in resp onse to the pronounced, large-scale environmental changes that are occurring in the Arctic. It is highly likely that

commercial endeavorswill develop in this region; these developments will lead to increased commercial traffic,resource exploitation, and

associated international interface, which willdirectly affect U.S. Coast Guard statutory responsibilitiesand pose significant challenges to theCoast Guards future ability to execute these responsibilities in the ice-affected waters of the Arctic.

Icebreaking missions are non-militarywe meet civilian interpretationGarrett, 81Thesis written for the Naval Postgraduate School (Jeffrey, Arctic Alaska and

icebreaking : an assessment of future requirements for the United States Coast Guard

http://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/20435/arcticalaskaiceb00garr.pdf?sequ

ence=1)

I. BACKGROUND: ICEBREAKING AND THE COAST GUARDThe Coast Guard isin certain ways unique in the country'sgovernmental structure. It is, by definition, an armed force of the United States yet virtually the entire thrust

of its peacetime role is distinctly non-military . This dual nature is characteristic of individual operating units as well as theorganization as a whole. The sheer scope of duties is also no teworthy; there are fourteen operating programs (or major endeav ors) carried out by

38,400 uniformed personnel, 5,400 civilian employees, 11,700 selected reservists and an auxiliary of 42,500 [Reference 160] . The Coast Guard has

been descriptively categorized with regard to these features as a dual-role, multi-miss ion agency: it is a military service performing

a wide range of civilian duties[Ref. 2]

Legal definitions define the bright-line on military versus scienceicebreakers

are run by the NSF

NRC 7 (National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of

U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

14 U.S.C. 94 requires the Coast Guard to conduct oceanographic researchand to cooperate

with other government agencies as may be in the national interest. 14 U.S.C. 141 authorizes

the Coast Guard to utilize its personnel and facilities to assist, among others, federaland state

agencies. Under this authority the Coast Guard provides icebreaking services to user agencies

such as the D epartment o f D efense and the National Science Foundation ; upon proper


2/9

request, the Coast Guard conducts icebreaking in harbors and channels to relieve flooding

conditions.


3/9

2. 1AR Overlimits

Our interp is that the aff must have a non-military objectivethe quality of

assets is irrelevant

Allows sufficient groundneg can still read non-military disads, military

counterplansthis also allows them to read disads to use of military assets

(miscalc, overstretch, etc.).

Their interp massively overlimits

Military assets are commonly appropriated for civilian purposesspecifically true in the context

of science and research effortsthats gvosdev. They arbitrarily exclude that category of affs.

Nextthis excludes a litany of dual-use technologies just because they could be used for

military purposes

no t version of the affcivilian ships cant go into the arctic we need icebreaking to access affsabout an entire ocean

Debates over military assets are inevitable because the negative will read military counterplans

(implicates Rowland)the aff should have access to military assets

Intent determines whether an activity is military. Prefer ev citing naval experts in the context

of ocean policy. Brown speaks to Burmese cookstakes out predictability and intent to

define.

No limits DAnon-military intent precludes aggression and policingtakes out the caselist.

Other words checkdevelopment requires exploitation, not combat. They dont solve

because civilian agencies can perform military functions.

Topics already small its precludes leases; military techs key to beat states and private CPs.

No limits explosionwe dont allow any combat or security missions because the objective of

the aff must still be non-military

Lack of bright line means err Aff or theres no workable case ground.

Zedalis 79Rex J. ZedalisResearch Associate, International and Comparative Law Department, George Washington University

(1978-1979). Member of the California Bar and the American Society of International Law "PEACEFUL PURPOSES"

AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED COMPOSITE NEGOTIATING TEXT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF

THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED MILITARY REGIME FOR THE HIGH SEAS Syracuse Journal of International Law

and Commerce, Vol. 7 [1979], Iss. 1, Art. 2available via:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=41&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CIMCEBYwKA&url=

http%3A%2F%2Fsurface.syr.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1098%26context%3Djilc&ei=jwKmU6j7Lo-

3yASFh4KwDg&usg=AFQjCNFbusVzhU2bXbZ1CMhi0Te-pKFeEg

The requirement in article 143(1) that marine scientific research be carried out "exclusively for peaceful purposes" does not appear to proscribe all

scientific research of a military nature. This conclusion is derived from the consistency of such a construction with the i nterpretation of "peaceful

purposes" as used elsewhere in the RCNT (articles 88 and 141), the absence of a pro vision explicitly prohibiting such traditio nal activity, and the fact

that reading "peaceful purposes" as prohibiting scientific research of a military nature would produce the anomalo us result of having one provision

(article 143(1)) proscribe relatively innocuous research activity while provisions found elsewhere in Part XI (articles 136, 140(1), and 141) permit other

extensive military uses consistent with principles of international law. Nor does it appear that the requirement that such activity be ca rried out for the

"benefit of mankind as a whole" significantly affects the interpretation concerning the impact of article 143(1) on scientific research of a military

nature. Though admittedly some may argue that no military activity can benefit mankind as a whole, it seems that scientific research is

distinct from what is typically viewed as military activity. Specifically, while traditional military activity can benefit either the

acting nation alone or the acting nation plus all others, except those against which it is directed, recent history has demon strated that almost all


4/9

scientific activity, albeit military in nature, producessome useful non-military applications. Moreover, it would

be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish most military from most non-military

scientific research. Certainly such an attempt could not turn upon the character of those conducting

the activity, particularly since military scientists are generally in the forefront of scientific activities

in transnational spatial areas. And, finally, as mentioned in relation to the requirement that marine scientific research be carriedout exclusively for "peaceful purposes," construing any provision in article 143(1) as proscribing military research produces the anomalous result of

outlawing innocuous activities while provisions elsewhere in Part XI permit other extensive milit ary uses of the Area.


5/9

Reasonability

Statutory Precision and grammar should frame reasonability It proves their interp is arbitrary and contrived just to limit out the aff that wrecks aff

predictability, debate precision, and causes a substance crowdout-non-military is an adjective

that modifies exploration, which means only that the act has to be non-militarytheir limit is

contrived, undermining aff predictability. That should frame reasonability. Good is good enough

otherwise, we default to an arbitrary, contrived vision of the topic.


6/9

CP

Successful LCS prevents forthcoming violent threats- they are amphibian ships

which means they have unique capabilities to project power in places where

solely land and naval forces arent enough


7/9

A-to ICRC 71

( ) Their ICRC ev says nothingits FAR WORSE than the Zendalis ev. Their ev

assumes the Red Cross and doesnt apply.


8/9

A-to Brown

The Brown card might be the worst card on the topicit assumes Burmese

Rebels and is written for the purposes of one paper. Its way worse than theZendalis.

reject the teamtheyre conceded the argumentative irresponsibility impact

condo incentivizes no cost optionsjustifies illogical CPs that kill education and

clashhurts advocacy skills because they go for the least covered argument

neg flex is inevitable because of preround condo which means this is the only

impact

Even if skews are inevitable advocacies create a unique skew because theyaffect the way we debate other issues

perms dont check theyre just tests of competition

1 condo solves their offense and prevents judge interventionallows neg flex

and doesnt link to our offense


9/9

PTX

Will pass- conceded Israeli lobby

Will pass- lead republicans are on boardCox 14(Ramsey Cox is a Reporter for The Hill's Floor Action Blog, covering the Senate,http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-

iran-negotiations,Senate Republicans demand deadline for Iran negotiations

SenateRepublicans introduced a billWednesday that would set a deadline for nuclearnegotiations

with Iran. Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Bob Corker(R-Tenn.) is the lead sponsorof the Iran

Nuclear Negotiation Act. Sens. Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.), John McCain(R-Ariz.) andMarco Rubio(R-Fla.) are

cosponsors. Corker said the bill would allow congressional review of any deal, require the Director of

National Intelligence to report to Congress on any violations by Iranto the agreement, and sets a deadline for

negotiations. If the administration doesnt have a f inal comprehensive agreement by Nov. 28, U.S. sanctions

against Iran would go back in place. I strongly support vigorous diplomatic efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran,

but it must be clear that there will be no more extensions, Corker said. Congress must weigh in on any finaldeal. The administration recently asked for an extension to reach a deal with Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to stop Iran

from developing a nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions. I am more convinced than ever that

these negotiations are unlikely to result in an agreement with Iran that prevents it from

developing a nuclear weapon, Rubio said. By unilaterally making major concessions to the Iranians, the administration

is laying the groundwork for a very bad deal. It is essential that Congress have the opportunity to fully

examine, debate and vote on any deal concluded with Iran.

Winners win was conceded

Also plan pop
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-iran-negotiationshttp://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-iran-negotiationshttp://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-iran-negotiationshttp://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-iran-negotiationshttp://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213180-senate-republicans-demand-deadline-for-iran-negotiations

1ar baby shuks

Documents