[eDebate] Some thoughts about topic wording and ballot options
Fri Apr 13 10:25:26 CDT 2007
I share many of Will's concerns, but I do disagree that Bush's position is
stable and predictable on the weapons topic. His history is actually quite
mixed. While the Ameican public perception may be that he has been a
hardliner on weapons development by other countries, I believe the
international perceptions would be quite different. Couldn't get much more
hard line than he did on Iraq, true.
*Acted like a hardliner for six years on North Korea, than in the wake
of a declining presidency, reverted very closely to the Clinton approach
* acted tough toward Pakistan, but offered no sanctions after Khan was
discovered to be a principle point person in the sale of nuclear technology
* talks tough on Iran, but his real method here is quite obscured by the
clouds of international constraints
* probably weakened the NPT with the nuclear deal with India
I don't know how this factors in to the relative stability and
predictability Will is seeking compared to the other topics, but I don't
think the notion that Bush has a predictable policy when it comes to weapons
positioning is necessarily as clear as we might think at first. At a
minimum, his recent shift in positions on North Korea, prove he can reverse
course on a dime if he needs a political shift.
I want to emphasize that this post is not designed to compare which topic is
"more predictable" but I just fell it is worth giving some thought to
Bush's, dare I say, "flip-flopping" on proliferation policy.
> c) The central controversy is stable -- at least for the next 19 months.
> This is an issue in modern topics. "Pressure" and (to a lesser-degree)
> "Overrule"/Raich/Hamdan were a a little in flux during the course of the
> season. At times this hamstrung the neg, but at times it simply hamstrung
> both sides.
> One thing that I feel makes for a strong topic is WHEN THE CENTRAL
> CONTROVERSY (or list item) IS A CLEAN DEVIATION FROM THE STATUS QUO. A
> decent vision for a topic is one that can't easily include the "pressure
> now" underview.
> Straight-up, I do not think our overall weapons posture will change in a
> that will complicate the uniqueness for advantages or disadvantages.
> For this reason, I like debating this topic while this President is still
> office. I'd rather not "sit" on THIS topic -- I think it could grow less
> stable after the next Presidential election. And, I think the other areas
> could grow more stable/inherent in time.
More information about the Mailman