[eDebate] Why I like Resolution #2

[Matt Cormack]

I am guess Austin meant that if China said no then the
unilat CP would solve, not that the case isn't T...but
I wouldn't put him past it to make that a T violation.
I think that these are mainly hypotheticals anyway
because no aff would be that dumb to do something w/
no lit about china.

I share the fear/dislike for consult CP's but think
that they are inevitable on this topic.  Rez7 seems
like the worst as well.  The consult japan evidence
all assumes we should consult on troop deployment
(which is an arg that should be given some credit i
think) but if the aff does actually change troop
deployment everyone will consult.  [Side note: I don't
have any problem w/ resolution 7 but it reminds me of
the 3rd party candidate that everyone wants to see win
but doesn't have a chance, maybe I am wrong].


Boring relations debates- I also think these debates
are boring and silly with usually some of the worst
cards in debate. Again, on this topic they are
inevitable b/c we are dealing w/ China. Maybe those
debates will get better after a year of having to cut
cards on them.


matt

--- Travis Neal <travisneal at mac.com> wrote:

> China saying no is a limit?  That is ridiculous. 
> That is akin to  
> saying "a plan last year would drop global price
> thereby increasing  
> consumption" was a resolutional limit.  Since when
> is a solvency  
> argument a reason to vote on topicality?  So what if
> the neg wins  
> that China passes at the opportunity?  Then there is
> still this  
> unilateral US action to debate out.  This remaining
> action has little  
> limit brought down by the resolution (see my Project
> Orion example 2  
> posts ago.)
> 
> Matt and the committee are right that the wacky
> space lit doesn't  
> advocate Chinese coop, and the unilateral CP is then
> very viable.   
> But who cares.  That means a team merely has to do
> an aff with a  
> wacky proposal and then prep for the relations
> debate.  I fear we  
> will see the Consult CP debate every round as that
> is now what the  
> aff is.
> 
> Notice my complaint is not that there is not fair
> nor unpredictable  
> negative ground.  The neg does have a sweet way to
> make the  
> unpredictable 1AC moot.  My fear is that the neg
> ground is so  
> powerful the tournament will look the same from
> round to round as we  
> have one debate, the consult affirmative and the
> relations bad disad.
> 
> Travis Neal
> still liking topic 7
> 
> On Jun 7, 2005, at 2:46 AM, CAplayer14 at aol.com
> wrote:
> 
> > Matt- You are right on in your assessment of the
> cooperation topic.  
> > At the topic meetings we talked about the
> unilateral counterplan as  
> > the largest limiting factor on this resolution. I
> have done some  
> > research on the space part of this topic and found
> that literature  
> > will substantially limit the number of cases
> affirmative teams will  
> > be able to run. There are simply not a lot of
> prescriptive articles  
> > that isolate different proposals for ways to
> cooperate with china  
> > in space. In fact, this area was made larger to
> allow for cases  
> > outside of space exploration for that reason. Most
> of these cases  
> > will be like include china in our mars plans or
> let them in on x  
> > intl space station project.  From what I can tell
> space debates in  
> > this area will not be crazy, but will be good
> tech/hege/relations  
> > debates about chinese counter balancing in space.
> Also, something  
> > we discussed about this topic is the inherent
> negative ground that  
> > china will say no. Which limits all of the areas
> and adds some  
> > predictability to negative strategy. Although I
> think the area  
> > about terrorism makes this topic massive.
> >
> > Austin
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com