[eDebate] For Topic Meeting Consideration: List Topics

[Ryan Chorkey Burke]

To All, 

I would like to express my concern over the topics that have been posted 
thus far and recommend some changes. Dallas made a post recently that 
pleaded with the community to have several list topics as well as multiple 
non-list options for voting. I would like to strongly echo that concern. 


None of the options that have been presented thus far are list topics. 


That sentence was its own paragraph to stress the importance of its message. 
The ballot options that are being characterized as list topics are actually 
what I would refer to as ?area topics? ? or subsets, if you will. They 
say that the aff must change foreign policy toward china, and then specify 
several distinct areas in which that may occur, allowing for many 
affirmatives in that area. The number of affs available in something as 
broad as ?increasing pressure? on ?trade? is enough to have made 
even Matt Cormack concerned. This is quite distinct from what I consider to 
be a list topic, which specifies plans that the aff must enact (dangerous 
word?), but crafts the topic so as to ensure that those affs run deep in 
the literature. 

That these area topics have taken the name ?list? is frustrating. We 
will all be better off when both the list-fanatics and list-opponents alike 
realize that nobody enjoyed having the Greece-Turkey section of Europe as 
part of the topic. In a similar manner, it will not be any great victory for 
list die-hards if any of these China ?area topics? are chosen. 

Area topics are not a good compromise. They frustrate the broad-topic crowd 
because they are too expansive as it is a trying task to find one good verb 
to cover several areas of foreign policy. They also do not demand that the 
affirmative make a large, or controversial, change to foreign policy which 
frustrates the list topic crew. 

Here are some important distinctions for me as to why I believe that we 
should take the time to present several list items on the ballot instead of 
area topics: 

1. Area topics are too broad, and lists are not. The Greece-Turkey subset of 
Europe had approximately 20 plans that could all be construed as not being 
intimately related to one another and possessed their own advantages. The 
TNW?s list item had 1 plan and roughly 40 advantages. I have made this 
argument before but I must again: true list topics present stable negative 
ground in having a consistent plan while allowing aff flexibility in 
advantage areas. This comes from selecting roughly 5 affirmatives that have 
vast amounts of literature both in support and rejection of the policy the 
affirmatives pursue. 

***A point of clarification: providing the affirmative with a good plan is 
not particularly difficult on this topic compared to other resolutions. 
Changing strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, changing the US stance (in a 
very specific way) on China?s involvement in the multi-party talks in 
regards to North Korea, increasing US military presence in the South China 
Seas or the Taiwan Straits, establishing a No First Use pledge for nuclear 
weapons toward China, etc would all be viable options for a list ballot. 
Don?t be afraid of bi-directionality if that is the only cost to having 
predictable debates. People will research both sides of the China relations 
debate anyway. 

2. Generic ground provided by both area topics and broad topics is not good 
enough. For these area topics which increase cooperation toward China in a 
particular category of foreign policy, ?US-Sino Relations Bad? is not 
not not going to be adequate. There are two reasons for this: (a) Small 
affirmatives will easily dodge the link question on whether cooperation on 
light issues spillover to the broader relationship and (b) US-Sino Bad is 
the wrong side of the debate. It is counter-intuitive to believe that 
cooperation between the most militarily powerful country in the world and 
its most likely challenger is net-negative for global stability. 

These reasons are why generic ground must be found elsewhere. Locating 
generic ground in a stable plan mechanism allows for both plan-generic 
counterplans that can solve some/most of the aff and plan-generic disads 
that the aff must always deal with. There is no loss of aff creativity here; 
affirmatives get to craft their arguments to remedy these more-specific 
generics. An example: the CTBT affs at the end of the year were designed to 
beat the permanent moratorium counterplan, which was a fundamentally 
important alternative to consider rather than pursuing than the global 
treaty. A second example: the TNW?s affs developed to be ready to beat the 
deterrence disad. A third example: Kyoto teams ran their affs to beat the 
domestic greenhouse cuts counterplans by including competitiveness and trade 
advantages. Every good list item has a similar example. 

This could be replicated on China as there is an intense debate over 
changing strategic ambiguity vs. a counterplan which permanently extends the 
1-China policy. 

This would be preferable to the alternative area topic. Instead of crafting 
advantages to beat opponents to their argument before they get there and 
truly out-debate other teams, affirmatives will race to the margins and 
skirt the issue. When plans are changed instead of advantages, there is no 
longer generic negative ground. The minute affs in the corner of a broad 
topic or an area topic will not link to US-Sino Bad. 

I also believe that the plan-specific generic ground is more educational. It 
encourages more detailed and intricate work, where consultation counterplans 
and US-Sino bad do not exactly rise to this level. 


3. Please do not include the word ?pressure? in a resolution. This word 
could be interpreted in so many ways. Our community has repeatedly shown 
that the words ?substantial? and/or ?significant? are not good 
enough checks; I am certain that ?pressure? affs in many cases will not 
link to a serious US-Sino Good disad. If the idea behind this pressure topic 
is to include a containment option for the voters, then including options to 
deploy US military units, sanction China, sell arms to Taiwan, etc would all 
be viable for a list. 


Last year?s ballot options did not include a viable list topic. The 
pro-ANWR topic was the closest resolution to a list, yet it was never going 
to garner support because of this community?s thoughts on drilling. Please 
let us at least have the option for voting for a list topic (or two) this 
year. At the very least, we should learn from our mistakes. Europe had 
serious flaws because the list form was abandoned in some places for area 
affirmatives. If we take the time to craft a true-to-form list topic this 
year I promise it could really be great. How nice it would be to have 
debates about bold, controversial, and important policy changes most every 
round. 


A final thought: Would it be more educationally valuable and/or more 
appropriate for this research-intensive activity if the elimination rounds 
of CEDA and the NDT were decided on an affirmative at the heart of the topic 
or on ?substantial? topicality? 

 

 -Ryan Burke
Michigan State