[eDebate] Ag/Phil/Monte

Jason Russell jasonlrussell1
Wed Apr 23 02:24:12 CDT 2008


17 econ disads are only bad in the current economic climate. The trade disad
is messed up in the same way (because it's based on pressure on
manufacturing producing protectionist impulses; also, protectionism is, in
fact, up in many sectors of the U.S.). The hegemony disad? Really? Ok, I
wont even get into which topic accesses this best, but Id like to have a
moment of silence for consideration of why we'd care. Nothing? Me neither.
The relations disads he's alluded to, but never mentioned to any degree of
specificity, are again assuredly better on the Russia topic and Im guessing
have less than marvelous links to the plan (unless youre talking about
impact turning US/developing nations relations, which, while admittedly
sounding stupid, will assuredly be a central component of neg args on the ag
topic -- evaluate this however you choose to). If you think the ag topic
means no consult CPs, youre naive. People who consult, will consult. People
who dont, wont. The topic isnt going to change this. It's as predictable as
OU will read Neitzche or Indians. Conditions CP on the ag topic is ok. It's
the best neg thing in the paper. But, conditions for Russian military coop?
Uhm, yeah, specific, hot, stops a real nuclear war, is sexually arousing.
Seriously. Also, the unilateral reductions vs. conditioned reductions debate
has become more one-sided for the aff since the EU basically told us to eat
it during the early going on Doha when we suggested it. They not only could
say no, but have. En masse reductions vs. caps are loopholed by the "nearly
all" part of the topic. Good luck making the aff specify what that means
(sanctions, anyone?). Ill conclude by saying this: the politics disad. It
links to all of the topics; anyone seriously considering this as even a
tie-breaker for why you choose the ag topic is criminally silly. This topic
has a very small area of controversy, that controversy is centered on areas
that are largely shared by each topic area (ptx, econ), and the neg ground
is as a result very constricted.

Ill say this about domestic versus international topics. This topic is not
domestic. The controversy is international. It relates primarily to trade
and global economics. All of the negative arguments save politics and econ
are international in nature. I dont see anything about this topic that keeps
it "at home". And, your response that all domestic topics have global
ramifications is only more evidence that rotation was always a bad idea bc
the syncopative separation of domestic/international topics is literally
inconceivable.

Nice work, Monte, whoever you are.

J
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080423/72d43266/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list