[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 answers to popular questions

> yes, yes, wording can be changed later, however, don't you think we ought to 
> discuss what the potenial wording snafus can be?  don't you also think that 
> topics ought to be compared in terms of how good the ground they provide?  i 
> do, and am sorry if anyone misconstrues my message as political.
> 
> becky galentine
> 

We can and possibly should discuss wordings ahead of time, if you will, 
but the potential wordings we discusson the L should not inhibit or 
discourage someone from voting for the topic as an area. In other words, 
if you are someone who is "straddling the fence" and are currently 
discouraged from voting for the NSS topic purely because of your 
pessimism regarding the wording, then stop and relax because it'll be 
hammered out; for now VOTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

As for comparing the topics on ground basis. I think the NSS topic swamps 
/crushes the environment topic on ground! Case debates and case specific 
disads galore. All the potential cases listed by Kate have enough 
literature that a 1nc could simply debate case straight up. That IS NOT 
POSSIBLE with the environment topic. There is major incentives to find 
squirrel environment cases. Pick a lake, river, coast area. Pick any 
hazardous waste area. Amend a piece of legislation in so many numerous 
ways. Most of the scientific evidence is concesualized ie.  harm debates 
will become impossible to "turn" or difficult to mitigate by a negative. 
the Environment topic is massively skewed towards the affirmative in 
terms of case debates. Specific proposals for solvency mechanisms are 
frequently found in Law Review articles with NO COUNTER EVIDENCE, 
something the topic paper itslef mentioned as if it was a good thing!  (I 
mean the part about aff ideas in law reviews,  :) ). Federal 
regulations?!? What a topic. Pick any number of ideas spewing forth from 
every environmental group in the USA and congressman in the Record. 8000 
potential amendments to the Endangered Species Act was a statistic I 
remember reading. Yea good luck on finding counter evidence to those 
amendments, and impossihility of generic disad ground. As far as the 
proposal to simply "increase a federal regulation" you've got to be 
kidding me. Do I get to run Biziness confidence against Indian 
Reservations? What about biz con against one small regulation of the 
pacific lumbering industry (or whatever, an industry targettied in one 
small geographic region). Industry confidence doesnt spill over to other 
industry confidence. Not to mention that the environmental regulations 
and programs that we would advocate happen all the time by both federal 
govt and state government. Does your biz con link evidence differentiate 
between which regulation? Suddennly I feel limited to running 
movements... hmm I bet there is a big mobilization around the toxic waste 
in my backyard, and surely this movement is gonna spread to encompass the 
entirety of domestic hazardous wastes in the USA, no doubt. Do you  think 
for a moemtn that the affirmatives will be debatable!? Everyone will have 
their niche. 

The point that Josh makes about wording being grounded in literature is 
also good. We will limit squirrel cases by having actual textual 
limitations. The environment has al ot of literature, but its 
substantially all about small changes to be made in various locations (at 
least for debate, that will be how it comes up.. why claim big adv. when 
you can claim something small and avoid all disad links.)

This whine about lack of debatability on the NSS topic is silly. There is 
no bnasis for it. You complain because you may have to research different 
things more, but be sure that you will at least FIND things to say when 
you do. 

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