Re: Tex and national securitySecurity Strategyforce postureup review with a new national security strategy

[PlaeDoh@aol.com]

Topic 1 is basically limited to creating a new policy action. That means that
a smart affirmative will be able to basically anything as long as its
justified as national security and the prez does it.

Topic 2 is limited to nuclear force posture. While this is limiting... maybe
its a little too limiting in light of yours and Ron's answers. The
affirmative can basically either increase, decrease, redirect nuclear weapons
(damage limitation?), or do a little fake disarm :). 

Topic 3 is basically topic one except now the neg automatically gets bottom
up strategy is good ground.

Topic 4 is just funny... right? The best of all possible worlds?

On all but topic 2 and 4, the affirmative can do basically anything that has
national security implications (which could be anything). On topic 2 and 4
the language is too limiting. 

>>>>>>>>>
Tex says:
2.  I think my ans. to your first point also ans. your second.  National 
security jsut isn't tanks and missles. Heck, someone could prove that Bob 
Doles hemroids are a matter of national security.  The point is that the 
topic probably expands beyond just tanks and missles.
>>>>>>>>>
I say:
Concede, above.

>>>>>>>>>
Tex says:
3.  By debating the topic, I think that would answer your third 
question.  Everyone needs to educated and national security is as good a 
place to start as any.
>>>>>>>>>
I say:
except for domestic environment.

>>>>>>>>>
Tex says:
4.  I would assume that the environment could be a national security 
issue.  I don't think Josh would include it as a resolution if there 
wasn't any literature.  
>>>>>>>>>
I say:
Then why don't we debate domestic environment and then talk about the
national security implications? instead of going around it bass ackwards.

>>>>>>>>>
Tex says:
I think that the National Security is the "magic eight ball" because it 
is one of the hottest issues in the media, plus think about Tom Clancy 
made a fortune on National Security literature.
>>>>>>>>>
I say:
Yep, and so are the EPA and ESA. Tom doesn't know diddly :). The domestic
environment topic is sweet. The national security topic, albeit interesting,
is a somewhat close second.

>>>>>>>>>
In the essence of discourse
Dave "tex" williams
asu debate
>>>>>>>>>>

Likewise

peas, Danny "taco" Bell/Bakersfield College
"...12 years later that Gatling I'd touched was strapped to the nose of a
U.S. A-10, seperated flesh from bone and honed its skills on 'lesser humans."

I was a pre-teen McCarthyist - Propagandhi

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Why non-Ceda can't vote.
• Next by Date: CEDA dues
• Prev by thread: Holly Lewis and National Security (fwd)
• Next by thread: CEDA dues
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page