[eDebate] For Topic Meeting Consideration: List Topics

[Paul Johnson]

hahahahahha...Chorkey?!?!

--- Ryan Chorkey Burke <burkery1 at msu.edu> wrote:

> 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 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250