ED 2/94 part two version three

[drtuna@aol.com]

ED 2/94 part two version three

Alfred C. "Tuna" Snider, University of Vermont, 1/9/94:
I write this while in Kansas City, it is Sunday night 1-9-94. The William
Jewell tournament is over. It was a very good tournament. Four East teams got
to octas (25% of the field!) with Pace, two Cornells, and Max & Rico.
Unfortunately, all of them lost. But, it was one of the better showings I can
remember. I would encourage more of you to try and come out this way. The
debating is good, the judging is excellent, and you learn lot. I think the
way to get these judges to vote for us at nationals is to show them that we
are good during the season and break this silly stereotype about Eastern
debate.
Cases seem to be of three types: 1. We should intervene somewhere and
straighten things out. Haiti, Bosnia, Burundi, etc. They don 't necessarily
emphasize US troops (although they might), but might use such things as arms
sales, air strikes, electronic warfare, non lethal weapons, etc. 2. We should
continue a military intervention we have now. US forces in Germany,
Macedonia, the Far East, Japan, etc. are said to be a good and stabilizing
influence and that they should stay. 3. We should do something which is *sort
of* military intervention. Pulling out bases from Balau, flood relief in
Bangladesh, civic action in various nations are some examples. I am sure all
of you have come up with a big list of things which might be considered *sort
of* military intervention.
No value oriented cases were run that I know of, but there might have been
some in the junior division.
All of these cases have scenarios as their advantages. North Korean attack,
Russian adventurism, Iranian proliferation, Ukrainian-Russian war, Islamic
backlash, Chinese adventurism, etc. Very few people say "it is good and
creates stability" without showing a specific scenario. You need to be ready
to argue these scenarios....in favor of them, and to take them out on the
negative, or to turn them. 
Negative attacks seem to be of four types. 1. Topicality. Intervention is the
focus of this, usually, and there is a lot of evidence from military journals
and foreign policy texts which define specific characteristics which military
intervention must have. They tend to be very specific definitions and can
really hurt the affirmative. Plain old dictionary definitions are not making
it. Negatives have been arguing about democracy, but usually only so that
they can trick the affirmative into allowing them to link one of their
disadvantages. 2. Case arguments. Most of them are about military
intervention proper, whether it works, whether it escalates, etc. Some
democracy stuff, too. 3. Counterplans. The negative usually uses the
counterplan so that it is net beneficial....it avoids the negative
disadvantages but gains the affirmative advantages. If the case is really
good or the negative is not prepared for it, this is a preferred strategy.
Usually, the negative will have specific disadvantages which it runs with a
specific counterplan because the CP does not link to those disadvantages. 4.
Disadvantages. Teams seems to have between 4-8 disadvantages and then pick
whichever ones link or matches their CP or both. Perhaps I can come up with a
list of these later.
Evidence seems to be extremely important. Cards from 1992 just aren't making
it, as the international scene seems to be changing very quickly, as events
in Russia show. Is the evidence from before the crisis with parliament?
Before  the election? Before Clinton's visit? This makes a difference.
Backfiles from the UN topic will not carry you very far. Judges just seem to
be more aware of the fast changing nature of foreign events, so  they demand
current  evidence and vote for it.

James Michael Dumas, Cornell University, 1/8/94:  
Again, following the protocol of presenting what cases people are arguing 
(to help schools who cannot travel and advance the level of argumentation  on
the topic) without providing extra information such as who is running  what
are in depth information on the positions (so as not to disadvantage 
anyone), here is a case list from the William Jewell College tournament  that
was held January 6-8.  (I think it is complete at least for all of  the teams
in the varsity division.)
Bosnia  (threat of force, air strike, troops) Iraq (Gulf War) was appropriate
Haiti Palau (Balau) Islands (nuclear free zone) Forward Deployment in East
Asia (good in the status quo) Bangladesh (build cyclone shelters and coastal
embankments) Pakistan/India nuclear Agreement War Powers Act Burundi Troops
in Japan Liberia (replace Nigerian troops with American) Extend NATO (to
Eastern Europe) Germany (US troops in Europe good)

---

• Prev by Date: ED 2/94 part one version 3
• Next by Date: ED 2/94 part three version three
• Prev by thread: ED 2/94 part one version 3
• Next by thread: Re: ED 2/94 part two version three
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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