[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: national security strategy


On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Josh wrote:
Sixth, I have yet to hear any argument
> for why ground is an important issue in lieu of the generic balance.  I think
> this is the crux of all of my arguments and I have yet to hear anything but
> repeated reluctance to give the affirmative ground.......How we avoid this
> problem is an intersting conundrum :)
Is this really the crux of your argument for the NSS topic? I think 
others have different reasons- i.e., "I'm foaming at the mouth to debate 
disarm," or "FINALLY a use for my prolif files," or "Just think- nuke 
war, nuke war, nuke war!!!!" etc. We presented what we thought were the 
topical cases earlier. We haven't heard too much out of you on that list, 
other than references to Guideposts and other *fascinating* positions. 
Which aren't unique, etc, etc. They were easily defeated on the CINC 
topic. But what I'm more interested in is the implication of this 
argument. Generics only get you so far. If the affirmative ground is 
truly massive, when will the negative get to debate the case? 
Alternatively, what they might resort to is the looming spectre of the 
agent cp. Though Congress can't change the NSS per se, perhaps they 
should be able to- for SOP reasons. Presidential power bad plus 
clinton/dole/perot/gritz bad are the net benefits. It seems like you can 
have to much of a good thing- generics. And that can backfire, or the 
negative can be generally screwed. Or both- although with the advent of 
"p-p," maybe we shouldn't be concerned about those silly permutations 
anymore....


> My concerns about the environment topic are that 1) It is a vague and poorly
> defined term 
Good thing we don't think "the environment" should be in a resolution.
"Environmental pollutants" isn't unlimiting, is clearly defined, and is a 
wording based in the literature. 

 2) That the topic will be vulnerable to change from day to day
> in the public policy arena in ways that will make all disadvantages non-unique
> and questionably linked 

That's true on every topic. We argue that to SOLVE this problem for the 
environment topic, the affirmative should be forced to go in the clearly 
opposite direction of the SQ- i.e., they should regulate rather than 
de-regulate. "Change," in the current NSS wordings, get the disads more. 
That is, national security strategy changes on a daily basis- first we 
hate Castro, then we REALLY hate Castro, etc. ±
The affirmative has a tremendous incentive to go in the same direction as 
the SQ, only more, bigger, etc.
Plus, it's pretty unlikely that the US will move to stop CO2 emissions by 
industries any time soon. Just ask Newt.

 3) I think it is more vulnerable to case of 
the week
> problems than it is strong in its balance of negative ground and 
How? There are a finite number of pollutants, and States/Local action 
plus federal action disads check small affs which do not demand federal 
action. And, we proposed plurality of regulations on at least two 
industries to reduce at least two pollutants.

4) I think
> it is vulnerable to amorphous interpretation (e.g. the suggested wordings
> are not precisely defined in the literature.  My suggestion would be that
> precise documents in existence should be the ground for change in the policy
> versions of the topic (e.g. ESA, Rio treaty, superfund, NEPA, Clean air act
> etc)... this creates generic negative ground for the reasons articulated
> above. 
That laundry list does not provide a limit. Those arguments are made in 
the topic paper. The terms of the resolutions are clearly defined in the 
literature. That's in the topic paper too. There's no warrant for this claim.

 A final criticism is it is vulnerable to agent and actor counterplans
> :).....I do not mind the debate if it is relevent to the topic :)......
Vulnersable, but those CPS are nbot intrinsic to all affs, just the ones 
they solve for. Plus, that debate is intrinsic to the topic, plus, unlike 
the NSS topic, those CPs do not apply and do NOT solve the harms for the 
core affirmative cases setting standards for states to enforce (the 
permutation, if that word's not taboo now.)

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