bell and nat sec.

[wipeout@siu.edu (j griffith)]

i'm here to tell everyone that their first assumption that national
security as a debate resolution will boil down to small conflicts in places
we cant pronounce the names of is wrong.  that was the intervention topic.
this is entirely different.

dano says:
>That is a very good point. Just what is national security? Is immigration
>policy national security? Infotech is almost certainly a national security
>issue. Josh's resolutions are as follows:

strategy limits.  it means:

 The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute
approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.

second, this means one policy or a small group of policies doens't meet the
topical burden of the resolution.  sorry.  its a compelling argument, but
it doesn't apply.

next is effects most people think its illigitimate.  finally, the president
as the sole actor of plan kindof skews this interpretation.

this entire 'one policy' or 'x effects nat sec' argument is a knee jerk
reaction.  read the literature.

>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.

no.  above.  the topic doesn't say change a policy justifiable by national
security.  it says - change national security strategy.  the res is good.

>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 :).

i'm not sure if i'm knee jerking myself here but i believe that nuclear
force posturing would also include missile defense and other nuclear
deterrents.  as for the 'too limiting' argument, i doubt that.  as long as
your prolif good file has more than waltz and mearshimer cards (does it?
take a look taco.) you can see that there are more aspects to nuclear
posturing than simply our numbers and targeting of nuclear weapons.  it has
to do with how we deal with other nations and their acquiring of nukes and
how we comply with current treaties as well.  this topic is great.  the
ground is stunning and the on point clash would be beautiful.

---

the most clash i have had this year in a debate round was when we debated
realism.  most people have run realism bad.  we always said it was good,
almost guarenteing that people would have good answers.  even so the debate
was always good.  its an excellent area to debate and it is also a great
starting point for further resolutions.

dont get me wrong, i'm not about to start mudslinging regarding any of the
other topics.  its not worth it.  this area, however is a good one to
facilitate good debate.

jason


-----salukis-----

no equality - no opportunity - no tolerence for the progressive alternative.



                                                bad religion

---

• Prev by Date: nat sec. is the way to go.
• Next by Date: Re: nat'l security
• Prev by thread: nat sec. is the way to go.
• Next by thread: P2 - Answ. Mahoney & A New Strategy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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