Stefan Bauschard

image

Millennial Online Coaching and Tutoring

Millennial Speech & Debate provides online coaching and tutoring and speech and debate for individual students, student groups, schools, and debate training academies. We have tutored students in Canada, China, the United States, and Taiwan. We’ve also run training programs in the Dominican Republic and South Korea. Since the Spring of 2017, we have provided more than 1,000 hours of training for more than 220 students, and we now offer tutoring and training in other subjects. Training and registration for training is now provided through our Global Academic Commons Online program.  Through this program, students can register for individual tutors, academies can arrange for partner courses, and students can sign-up for low cost group courses (only $25/class) that can help them prepare for the season.  Check out our website or email us at [email protected]  so we can help you meet your needs.  

Space Colonization Update

Manor non-technical hurdles to space colonization   Jessica Stillman, Inc.com, 11-3-17, 3 Big (Non-Technical Reasons Elon Musk’s Mars Colonization Might Not Fail, https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/3-big-non-technical-reasons-elon-musks-mars-colonization-plan-might-fail.html If you want a thought-provoking peek at possible near futures, you could read a sci-fi book. Or you could just have a read through Elon Musk’s recently released plan for establishing a colony of a million people on Mars. The entirety of Musk’s September talk . . . Access to this post requires a PAID registration

Background checks update

Federal background checks reduce gun deaths by 67% Kalesan, et al, 2017,Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA; a cross-sectional, state level study, http://docplayer.net/36815549-Firearm-legislation-and-firearm-mortality-in-the-usa-a-cross-sectional-state-level-study.html Bindu Kalesan, Matthew E Mobily, Olivia Keiser, Jeff rey A Fagan, Sandro Gale, Department of Medicine (B Kalesan PhD) and School of Public Health (S Galea MD) , Boston University, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health (M E Mobily MD) and Columbia Law School and Department of Epidemiology (J . . . Access to this post requires a PAID registration

image

Defeating the Gun Control Complacency Argument

“Even the amount of public pressure brought on by the massacre of primary school students wasn’t enough to force meaningful federal change on guns” Join Bilal Butt and staff at Millennial Speech & Debate Institutes this summer!  $1995 Resident, $495 Commuter  ALL PF RESOURCES One of the most popular Con arguments at Blue Key was “Complacency,” claiming that if universal background checks (UBCs) are supported that it is less likely that other stronger gun control measures will pass because people will become complacent – thinking that the problem of gun violence is solved– and because advocates of gun control will have less political capital – political “juice”/support available to spend on other gun control arguments. The link evidence that claims that more limited gun control measures will make people more complacent is strong, but this argument suffers from a number of significant flaws that I will detail in the rest of the essay. -There is no uniqueness evidence that other more significant gun control measures will be passed in the future -“Movements” disadvantages are circular, which is why people stopped running them as disadvantages in policy years ago – There is no comparative evidence that says any measure that could even conceivably pass in the future is more effective than UBCs or would work nation-wide -While the strong part of the argument, some of the link evidence is suspect Let’s look at each of these problems in more detail *The Uniqueness Question In order to win the complacency argument the Con has to win that stronger gun control measures will emerge in thee status quo in response to movements such as Moms Demand Action that place on legislatures to pass gun control measures. In the United States, there are two levels of government that could support the passage of gun control measures – the federal level and the state level. At the federal level, both houses of the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by Republicans who are incredibly opposes to gun control and whose campaigns are heavily supported by the gun lobby. The idea that the current Congress is going to pass gun control measures that are stronger than universal background checks is absurd. Here are some arguments as to why significant gun control will never occur at the federal level — (a) The last significant piece of gun control that passed n Congress was in 1994 under the Clinton administration, and when the Congress was also Democratic. No legislation has passed since. (b) As noted by the Business Insider on October 28, despite public support for gun control legislation, it will not pass Every major gun control bill proposed since the Las Vegas massacre is losing ground in Congress. There’s been little progress on major gun control legislation introduced into Congress since the deadly massacre in Las Vegas earlier this month. The push to ban bump stocks, implement tougher background checks, and enforce smart gun technology have all fallen by the wayside. A majority of voters support stricter

New November-December LD Arguments and Resources

We have a number of new resources available for the November-December LD topic. A post on arguments run at Blue Key. Blue key used the November-December LD topic. You can find a quick overview of arguments here. An updated annotated bibliography. Work on your own research by consulting this bibliography. An updated topic essay.  Read it here. The majority of the new updates are in A- Development Assistance File Number Two — Foreign Aid focus. We also have many arguments that can be used to debate specific cases available in other files. More than 22 new files!  Need help preparing? Join our LD online coaching sessions.

Bilal Butt on Missile Defense Solvency And Negotiations

Bilal Butt is the Curriculum Director of the Millennial Speech & Debate Summer Workshops. There have been a couple circuit tournaments on the September/October topic, and now after camp, the endless news cycles, and tired arguments of four invitational tournaments, its time for revision and some variation in order to excel the rest of the month. Here are a couple ways that some arguments on the current topic, Resolved: Deployment of Anti-Missile systems is in South Korea’s best interest, could improve or become a little more nuanced. First on the idea of anti-missile systems being escalatory. The common Pro argument is that missile defense systems offer layered protection as an appropriate response to the weapon arsenal developed by North Korea. There are a couple general responses made by Con teams that are consistently mishandled by Pro teams. First, Con teams say that, missile defense can’t even protect against certain types of attacks and North Korea will circumvent using other weapon systems e.g. chemical, naval, or other attacks. First this concedes that North Korea would have the impotence to attack in the first place creating the need for defenses but also the continued development of weapons by North Korea is not a justification to stand down. North Korea’s leverage stems from their ability to outpace the United States’ regional defensive measures. So even if North Korea can bypass, that just means the United States in conjunction with South Korea should have even more defensive capabilities not less. And then when con responds that all defensive measures taken by North Korea are seen as escalatory, Pro teams don’t know how to articulate that North Korean aggression long existed before any missile defense systems were implemented in South Korea. While missile testing operations by North Korea have grown this year especially after THAAD deployment, to use missile defense as the causal reason really undermines the historical regional conflict that has persisted. North Korea has sought nuclear weapons prior to missile defense and missile defenses were put into place as North Korea’s arsenal became more definitive and apparent. As such, Con easiest defense on this argument is that the nuclear umbrella doesn’t disappear without missile defense systems, so even if North Korea felt more comfortable without anti-missile systems in place, there’s no threat. North Korea’s nuclear development began as a protection for their regime from foreign threats, which means any attack would give foreign invaders justification to advocate for a regime change within North Korea. Second on the idea of negotiations. It seems Con teams have an easy time establishing that China is mad about THAAD and that they have some leverage over North Korea. What Pro teams are easily pushing Con teams on is the idea that negotiations don’t have a long term solution to the North Korea problem nor does China have any incentives to promote peace in the region because they do not believe North Korea to be a threat. I think Con teams should figure out some answers to these

Why Missile Defense is Important to Deterrence

It is important to understand not only how missile defense works to limit the damage of an attack from the North, but also how it functions to generally enhance deterrence. Its role in enhancing deterrence is important for a couple of reasons. First, if THAAD enhances deterrence it prevents other means of attack (artillery fire, ground trop invasion, bomber attacks) that Con teams will argue that missile defense cannot solve. Second, it provides strong general refutation for the claim that, “deterrence solves.” If a loss of missile defense undermines deterrence, then the Con’s deterrence arguments are substantially weakened. So, that said, let me explain the reasons missile defense enhances deterrence. One, even if missile defense is not 100% effective, it is able to shoot-down enough missiles that US and South Korean retaliatory capabilities will survive. Sutyagin, 8-21, 17, Sutyyagin is the author of Margaret Thatcher and the Middle East (Cambridge University Press, 2016). IGOR SUTYAGIN is Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, August 21, 2017, Foreign Affairs, Moving Forward With THAAD, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-korea/2017-08-21/moving-forward-thaad The U.S. missile defense program is more rightly viewed as a hedge against deterrence failure. China’s complaints over THAAD are wrong-headed since North Korea poses a grave and immediate threat to South Korea and Japan. By deploying missile defence systems in East Asia, the United States is reinforcing its security commitments to its allies in the region. In view of the fact that some 11 million people live in Seoul (one in five South Koreans), which is just 35 miles from the border with North Korea, they are vulnerable to an attack from Pyongyang. Thus a U.S. security commitment must utilize all the resources at its disposal to protect its ally, exemplified through missile defense. If there are no systems in place to intercept a North Korean missile barrage, many hundreds of thousands could be killed. In such a scenario, the United States would struggle to minimize the scope of the conflict, amid the suffering in South Korea.  This is known in the field as “deterrence by denial”: THAAD cannot provide cast-iron guarantees but it sends the message to Pyongyang that the success of a missile barrage against South Korean cities is not guaranteed either….Pyongyang must consider the strong probability that Seoul’s retaliatory capabilities would survive intact as a result of the defensive system. Keith Payne, a nuclear deterrence theorists, wrote in the Fall of 2017, that, “The deployment of THAAD to South Korea, for instance, will help protect the survivability and credibility of US and ROK retaliatory forces”  (Strategic Studies Quarterly) Two, most US troops are deployed in Seoul and the DMZ along the border – approximately 25,000 of them. These troops function as a “tripwire” that would force the US into the conflict (US politicians would have no choice to intervene if 25,000 US soldiers were killed), but no one thinks that many (or any) of them would survive. They merely exist to slow the North’s advance a bit and to send a

Public Forum Debate Terminology

A Add-on.  An add-on isi simply a new advantage (if you are Pro) or disadvantage (if you are Con) that is read in the Rebuttal.  Rather than explicitly presenting a new advantage or disadvantage (since some judges won’t like that), most debaters will will simply read it is a Turn to one of the original advantages or disadvantages. Advantage  The advantage is one of the benefits the Pro claims from supporting the resolution.   Advocate.  To advocate something simply means to support it with an argument.  For example, you may advocate going to the mall by making arguments in favor of going there. Affirmative  Sometimes debaters call the “Pro” the “Affirmative.”   Alternate causality. Alternate causality is simply an argument that says that there is another cause of the harm that the the Pro seeks to solve for.  For example, if the affirmative says that they save the economy by reducing taxes, the negative may say they do not solve because a housing crash will destroy the economy regardless. Analytic. An analytic is an argument based off common sense or reasoning. Answer.  An answer is simply a response to an argument. Apriori.  An apriori claim is a claim that one teams makes that they will say is more important than all of claims made by the other side. For example, an Pro team may argue that the judge has a moral obligation to support the resolution.  They will argue that this moral obligation should hold even if the negative disadvantages are true. Argument. Basically, an argument is a claim – an assertion – that is backed up by a warrant or warrants – reasons.  There are many different types of arguments in debate that are discussed throughout this volume and in this vocabulary section. B Backflowing.  After you give a Rebuttal speech you should give your partner a copy of your flow sheet so that he or she can fill in your arguments so that you have a flow of your own arguments. This is most important if you are the Rebuttal speaker because the Rebuttal speaker will need to reference arguments from the Rebuttal in his or her Final Focus. Before the debate starts, both members of a team should each pro flow their team’s constructive in order that they can refer to it during the debate. Ballot.  The ballot is where the judge(s) record winner and loser, speaker points for each time, and a ranking of the speakers in the debate in order from 1 to 4.  Many judges will write freestyle comments on the ballot (or type it into tabroom.com if online balloting is used). Break.  Most tournaments have preliminary debates and elimination rounds.  If you win enough preliminary debates, you will break to elimination rounds.  Each tournament participant will have the same number of preliminary rounds, but only a given number will advance to the elimination rounds. For one day tournaments, there are no “break” rounds. Awards will simply be given to a certain top percentage