I really appreciate this video, especially as a novice! Since winter break is starting, I don't have anything to do for the GPC topic, so preparing for this next one seemed like the productive thing to do. I took 14 pages of notes from this video, which I'll be sure to share with my partner. Thank you for the detailed analysis!
In reference to the end of your video: I don't "sit through" these videos, I heartily enjoy your ability to produce long-form content over such nuanced and intricate subject matter that is engaging from minute 1 to the final few seconds. As always, your analysis is much appreciated!
my partner and I just made an entire conspiracy theory looking board with like 50 sticky notes and flower print washi tape based off this video, you are a saint 🙏🙏🙏
Is it really safe to assume that increasing diplomacy directly causes a reduction in militarization in these regions? The resolution never talks about a shift in focus from military to diplomacy. It only mentions an increase in diplomacy. Can we assume that militarization will decrease? If so, by how much?
I have no empirics on the correlation. But we ARE withdrawing from West Asia (a la Afghanistan, Yemen), so we NEED some other tool IF we want to maintain influence, and diplomacy seems like the tool for the job. Of course we can draw down both and just lose all influence but that presumably would be bad.
@@DebateTrack Thank you so much for the response!! I have one more question: Aren’t the arguments that you talk about at 37:30 about the need for more diplomacy in Syria non-topical? The resolution talks about increasing diplomatic efforts in West Asia for the specific purpose of resolving internal-armed conflicts. So, wouldn’t increasing diplomacy in Syria for the reason of repairing the United States’ credibility or normalizing relations not be topical? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. And, thanks again!!
@@tobynguyen8590 you are correct -- diplomacy should target ending IACs-- but normalizing relations with Assad would be a means to resolve the civil war. Helping Syrian Kurds and regaining credibility would be advantages/impacts.
Thank you so much for this video! Since I don’t usually do Nat Circuit competition, do you have any suggestions about what the best CON arguments would be that inexperienced judges would find easy to understand?
I don't debate so I can't say which ones are currently common....but none of the args presented here are too technical.... I'd feel comfortable presenting any of them to a kay judge. Might be worth asking to actual Nat debaters though
@@DebateTrack I bought the full brief and it's fantastic! I have another question, though. Why exactly wouldn't you consider the Israel-Palestine conflict topical? It seems like it meets all of the requirements in your definition. Once again, your help is greatly appreciated!
@@tobynguyen8590 thanks for your support 🙏 it'd be non topical cause Palestine and Israel are two different countries so their conflict isn't "internal". If you disagree and think it's one country....then it is topical! So definitely a border case
I have a quick question. Which way do you think most debaters would go about the definition for internal armed conflicts because some people are saying it should include any conflicts between countries in west asia, while some others like you are saying internal means civil wars.
There's a technical definition for the phrase "internal armed conflict", and that's a civil war. If you don't look up the definition you'd think (as I initially did) that any within West Asia count. It's up to you how much you argue topicality in rounds where opponents cite international conflicts. Personally, I would fight those.
Is terrorism internal-armed conflict? If so, what terrorist groups are good examples of resolutional non-state actors and in what way are they good examples?
haha is this a quiz question? do terrorists cause violent conflict? If so, yes, If not, no. And it'd depend on the state. ISIS in Iraq perhaps, or Hamas in Palestine. Many in Syria.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
---timestamps---
4:01 - resolution / definitions
9:37 - background / context
24:58 - Pro
41:03 - Con
sorry for the sniffling.
I really appreciate this video, especially as a novice! Since winter break is starting, I don't have anything to do for the GPC topic, so preparing for this next one seemed like the productive thing to do. I took 14 pages of notes from this video, which I'll be sure to share with my partner. Thank you for the detailed analysis!
I'm happy it was useful!! 🙂 Great getting a jump on January
Good luck! Me and my partner have our first competition with this in two days :)
In reference to the end of your video: I don't "sit through" these videos, I heartily enjoy your ability to produce long-form content over such nuanced and intricate subject matter that is engaging from minute 1 to the final few seconds. As always, your analysis is much appreciated!
Yo that means a lot! Thanks for the kind words 🙏
my partner and I just made an entire conspiracy theory looking board with like 50 sticky notes and flower print washi tape based off this video, you are a saint 🙏🙏🙏
hellll yeah 🔥🔥 I’d love to see that
you gotta put that on a google drive or something and upload it so that we can see it.
Thank you so much for your hard work!! These videos always help out a lot!
your'e very welcome Lizz :) thanks for watching!
yo thanks for making these videos they’re super helpful
the intro music to the actual lecture will always give me goosebumps
New World Symphony 🔥 it’s legendary
Thank you so much!!!!
Very welcome Abigail 😌
these videos always help soooo much. thank you for sharing!!!
You are so welcome Celeste ✌️✌️
first video out on this topic is crazy
Is it really safe to assume that increasing diplomacy directly causes a reduction in militarization in these regions? The resolution never talks about a shift in focus from military to diplomacy. It only mentions an increase in diplomacy. Can we assume that militarization will decrease? If so, by how much?
I have no empirics on the correlation. But we ARE withdrawing from West Asia (a la Afghanistan, Yemen), so we NEED some other tool IF we want to maintain influence, and diplomacy seems like the tool for the job. Of course we can draw down both and just lose all influence but that presumably would be bad.
@@DebateTrack Thank you so much for the response!! I have one more question: Aren’t the arguments that you talk about at 37:30 about the need for more diplomacy in Syria non-topical? The resolution talks about increasing diplomatic efforts in West Asia for the specific purpose of resolving internal-armed conflicts. So, wouldn’t increasing diplomacy in Syria for the reason of repairing the United States’ credibility or normalizing relations not be topical? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. And, thanks again!!
@@tobynguyen8590 you are correct -- diplomacy should target ending IACs-- but normalizing relations with Assad would be a means to resolve the civil war. Helping Syrian Kurds and regaining credibility would be advantages/impacts.
Thank you so much for this video! Since I don’t usually do Nat Circuit competition, do you have any suggestions about what the best CON arguments would be that inexperienced judges would find easy to understand?
I don't debate so I can't say which ones are currently common....but none of the args presented here are too technical.... I'd feel comfortable presenting any of them to a kay judge. Might be worth asking to actual Nat debaters though
W VIDEO AS ALWAYS
Where can I find the links to your sources cited for these pieces of evidence?
debatetrack.com! the full brief for $10
@@DebateTrack I bought the full brief and it's fantastic! I have another question, though. Why exactly wouldn't you consider the Israel-Palestine conflict topical? It seems like it meets all of the requirements in your definition. Once again, your help is greatly appreciated!
@@tobynguyen8590 thanks for your support 🙏 it'd be non topical cause Palestine and Israel are two different countries so their conflict isn't "internal". If you disagree and think it's one country....then it is topical! So definitely a border case
I have a quick question. Which way do you think most debaters would go about the definition for internal armed conflicts because some people are saying it should include any conflicts between countries in west asia, while some others like you are saying internal means civil wars.
There's a technical definition for the phrase "internal armed conflict", and that's a civil war. If you don't look up the definition you'd think (as I initially did) that any within West Asia count. It's up to you how much you argue topicality in rounds where opponents cite international conflicts. Personally, I would fight those.
do you mind sending all of the cards you used?
All at Debatetrack.com!
Is terrorism internal-armed conflict? If so, what terrorist groups are good examples of resolutional non-state actors and in what way are they good examples?
haha is this a quiz question? do terrorists cause violent conflict? If so, yes, If not, no. And it'd depend on the state. ISIS in Iraq perhaps, or Hamas in Palestine. Many in Syria.
love u joel
Love you too Brian Liu
Your actually like a pf God like the pf team is making a shrine
That would definitely be a first 😅
11:50
W
ily
❤️❤️
Thumbnail is dipolmacy
Thanks for pointing that out! Fat fingers...
u sir have w rizz
Top tier comment