Re: National Security

[Earl Croasmun <croasmun@luna.cas.usf.edu>]

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Josen Singh Kalra wrote:

> > Do you think that this is a BAD thing?  In fact I think it would probably 
> > draw generic arguments as much as the other topics, but if some topic 
> > COULD induce people to move from generic arguments to specific ones that 
> > would indeed be a wonderful sight.
> > 
> > 
> Case debates would be wicked w/ NSS; that's one of its plusses. But there 
> should be some kind of disad I think too, especially if the topic is as 
> broad as topics usually are. This wasn't so on the high school health 
> care topic wher most debates were clinton/case only. It seemed ok then 
> because there were only 5 topical cases in the first place. If NSS had 
> that situation, I'd agree with you. But it doesn't.

I debated health care too, although a different year.  There were lots of 
disadvantages on that topic, nearly all of them relating to health care.

I hope I did not sound like I was jumping on your comment about the NSS 
topic.  I agree with most of what you have said both then and in this 
message.  But I was trying to make a more general point about the 
difference between specific disadvantages ("plan is bad") and generic 
disadvantages (such as, "plan is one of the many things that can increase X, 
and ALL of those things are bad, therefore the plan is bad").  When a 
negative tries to oppose a specific policy (and ESPECIALLY if the plan is 
a small and trivial one) by trying to drag in a discussion of 
bipartisanship or Clinton or trainwreck or whatever, the negative is just 
hurting itself.  The links and the uniqueness usually reek.  And the aff, 
if the generic happens to be a popular or predictable one, has had the 
opportunity to prepare PLAN-SPECIFIC takeouts or flips to the 
disadvantage, versus (usually) a very fuzzy or one-size-fits-all negative 
link to the plan.  Negative strategies like this are, I would argue, a 
large reason for the perceived imbalance between affirmative and negative.

---

References:

• Re: National Security
• From: Josen Singh Kalra <pitstop@uclink.berkeley.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: ans Tuna -Reply
• Next by Date: "CEDA" schools trying to qualify for the "NDT"
• Prev by thread: Re: National Security
• Next by thread: National Security
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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