suggestions re: topic list (fwd)

[Krueger]

i really am tired of posting to edebate.  i think that is why i have a
pinched nerve in my back (might explain the "dour facial expressions"
that Bear was referring to--I was trying to stay off pain killers at the
topic meeting, though i daresay that Soma would have belped
considerably).

regardless...  A brief explanation of development assitance and USAID.

For the critique of dev assistance, it isn't some sort of linguistic
criticism about "development."  all of that is rooted in the outcomes of
said assistance.  And, all development assistance programs are
administered through USAID.

Now, Coop argues that the neg could do it through another budget and
voila! solvency for all affirmative case advantanges and a link to a
criticism or disad.  While that might sound charming, it is problematic
that if the solvency evidence is going to be used for the neg, then it
still has to have the same INTENT and go through the same ACTOR (USAID)
, unless the cp contrives another mechanism that has no hope of changing
intent and capturing the advantage or has an advocate or sucks up and
affirmative solvency.

the rest is below.


CoopDB8 at aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/12/00 5:25:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes:
>
> << Coop and others also argue "do it but not that budget" CP and
>  kritik as net benefit--in the immortal words of Lee Corso, "not so fast
>  my friend."  you see, there would be a hell of a big solvency deficit,
>  since there IS NOT ANOTHER WAY THE USFG DOES IT.  :)  can't have a CP
>  and not do it that way, at least not one that has any semblence of
>  solvency. >>
>
> What??  That's it??  That's the big argument against the counterplan?  This
> is the way the USFG does it...so you can't do it any other way!  HUH??
>
> Is there a SEMBLANCE of a warrant here that I'm just missing? It seems like
> the budget category of the money used for project x is rather unimportant to
> solvency.  AND whatever MINISCULE solvency deficit you could POSSIBLY warrant
> will be SWAMPED back by my kiritik of the term development assistance
> EVERYTIME.

You have a warrant for being able to make the arg without any reference
to USAID or the intent of dev asst?  I don't think so.  No way that you
can suck up solvency.  The deficit would be huge and not swamped by shit
since the neg would still capture links to the criticism too.  oops.

Smart affs will let you get away with jack because of the warrants in
the dev asst criticisms for the rejection of dev asst will still be done
by the neg without a different mechanism.

and since the neg should know better, they will be in a world of
trouble.

you might not agree, but i am pretty sure that is how that debate should
go down.

krueger

>
> Please note:  I am not arguing against the dev. assist. topic.  In fact, I
> find it better than all the others (ALL?...oh yeah....BOTH)...but I just
> don't get the logic here if there is any...maybe you're being sarcastic and I
> just didn't pick up on it? Something?
>
> COOP

--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615) 898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/
http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/

>From  Wed Jun 14 00:11:00 2000
Message-Id: <WED.14.JUN.2000.001100.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 17379 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:12:06
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11642 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:12:05 -0400
Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id
 f.20.73b1b1e (3871); Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70
Message-ID: <20.73b1b1e.26785fd4 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:11:00 EDT
Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Kreuger -- When is next topic committee meeting?
Comments: To: mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu

This really is frustrating...I understand how some people just throw up their
hands...Mike are you even listening?  The point ALL ALONG has been to craft a
resolution that allows systemic change WITHOUT allowing the addition of any
particular increase.  Your arguments comparing the world of "change" which
ALLOWS an increase to a JUST a world of "increase" ar non sequitors.

 <<1.  increase vs. change

 i'll concede that increase dev asst is large--no question.  however
 change existing foreign aid policy is bidirectional and will result in a
 huge number of cases, and requires much more work in terms of links.
 Example: even with pol process disads, now have to have links both ways
 for ALL countries and not links one way for affs and both ways for your
 own aff (if you want turns).  this certainly increases the research
 burden substantially.  also, craft affs (under change) will have no net
 increase or decrease, just a shift, negating pol process disads
 (perhaps) and tradeoff disads, since the tradeoff is spec in plan.  i
 like the predictable nature of increase over change.>>

Predictable nature of INCREASE?  What are you talking about?  Remember, it is
your concession that increase allows the addition of any development program
to the existing world of dev. assist.  You intimate below that it may ALSO
allow qualitative changes...Now explain to me why this is more predictable
than a world where the aff. can only funcitionally revise EXISTING dev.
assist. programs.  That's a limited, predictable world.  AND it is has the
additional limitation of literature.

Why do political process disads go away?  You are assuming that the links to
those oh-so-strategic negative tools stem from either an increase or
decrease.  Seems both actions would require an amount of political capital.
I dunno - i just don't think it is such a bad thing to put the negative in
the position of going further than "Dev. assistance is unpopular..and you
increase it...so...that will require a big fight in congress..."   Having a
"change" resolution demands more sophistication from both the aff. AND the
neg. at least in terms of these "predictable" negative strategies.

<< 2.  foreign aid vs. dev asst

 foreign aid is certainly a whole bunch more than dev asst, which is
 pretty clearly defined and predictable based on what USAID does
 (administers dev asst).  foreign aid can be debt relief, military aid,
 sec asst, etc.>>

Right....but it has to be existing....I think that's why such a broad term
was suggested.  We may not be giving much (if any) dev. assistance to some of
these countries.  But we may be giving other things.  Remember, the argument
is that we should debate changing existing (AND ONLY EXISTING) foreign aid.

Also - why can't I under your arguement about INCREASE just slap any of these
other programs onto existing development assistance and call it an increase?
Especially if "increase" can mean a "qualitative change"??

 <<3.  sub saharan africa vs. Greater Horn of Africa

 48 vs 10 countries.  enough said.>>

I agree....if the action is broad enough then it should be directed at a
limited number of countries...here is where Ede and I differ.  I think we can
argue systemic change without being strapped to the entire continent.


 <<Cute ending to the post, but i haven't heard a good reason why reform is
 better.
 even if increase ends up with a whole bunch of cases, it is still less
 than reform.

 krueger>>

Hey - I got one...how about Reform would just be more INTERESTING.  Something
different.  It might allow people to actually discuss the real problems
associated with our attempts to "help" African nations.  It might force a
deeper discussion of critical issues (I went into this in some depth in my
original post on Friday morning...).

There's a few....

COOP