[eDebate] Ag Good - Ans Russell and Rubaie

Dylan Quigley dylan.quigley
Wed Apr 23 13:31:05 CDT 2008


A couple quick answers:

CPs:
Russell raises a good question: What are the CPs on the Ag Topic? PICs. Lots
and lots of PICs. I have frankly yet to see in a single judge philosophy: "I
really hate PIC debates. Especially ones well grounded in the topic
literature." Russell wants more process CP ground. Why? I have no idea.

The "all or nearly all" problem: No personal experience with this but after
talking with several veterans of the sanctions topic I have heard no one say
"man, we never got to read our sweet PIC because they had 'nearly all' in
their plan". Most people seemed to have no problem with the phrase. Also
even if it does turn out to be a problem only two of the five proposed
wording have this phrase attached. Seems like a good topic for community
discussion in the lead up to a topic meeting...

Here are the counterplans. You say they're only "conditions and phase in."
Wrong again. While the condition counterplans are real ? yes, there is
evidence that says Europe would do things if we were willing to cut
subsidies ? they aren't the only negative counterplan ground. How about the
counterplan that caps subsidies? Seems like a pretty good idea against affs
that ban subsidies. You seem to have ignored the way the trade barriers
counterplans could interact against the subsidies affirmatives. You've also
ignored the EU counterplan part of the paper ? change EU subsidies to solve
aff advantages. What is the generic counterplan on the Russia topic? Maybe I
missed it.

Okay lets worst case it - we discover after GSU that no CP solves Affs very
well and that all the PICs aren't competitive, do we burn the entire topic
and run for the hills? O wait didn't this happen on the treaties topic? I
have had to hear how sweet the Treaties topic a million times from everyone
over the age of 23 and my understanding is that there was hardly a single CP
that solved the Aff. Instead we might go back to debating peoples Affs -
Russell wants a CP that has a "systematic, philosophical attack on the aff",
why not just debate peoples cases?

Bottom Line: Even if there are no CPs, the Ag topic rules because the adv's
(both at the impact and link level) are contentious and all the Affs can be
debated in depth and on their merits. And even if this all wasn't true I'd
still rather debate these advs than "[INSERT FSU STATE] Stability" for
another year.

Agriculture Negative Ground:
Russell has mischaracterized the negative ground on this topic as "politics
and 17 econ disads." There are substantially more than this. He first says
that the politics disad sucks. Not a relevant argument. It's not the core of
topic negative and is going to happen on any topic. We get it, you've got a
Russia politics disad, but the agriculture topic has a bunch of specific
disads too. In relation to the economy disads, I realize that the state
economy disads might not be stand-alone disads, but they can certainly
function as block link arguments that are interesting. So here are a few of
the other disads. The first one is food prices. The topic paper does a
pretty good job talking about this one. I think there are good brink cards
for this disad because a bunch of revolts in relation to food prices are
starting to rise ? see Africa among other places. There is also the food
security disad.

The second is trade credibility. You've missed the boat on this one ? it's
not protectionism (which is an aff uniqueness argument). The argument says
the US has trade credibility now because it's holding the line in Doha. The
plan eliminates our leverage in those negotiations and collapses our trade
credibility. Sounds like something we haven't talked about before. You've
also got access to the competitiveness disad, which is discussed in the
topic paper.

Plus, I think the specific disads are a little better that cooperation bad.
There is a lot of discussion in the Russia paper about some generic disads,
but what specific ones are there for the affs? I'll give one good example
for the subsidies topic ? Ethanol. Cutting subsidies in certain areas would
decrease ethanol production in the US and the negative could argue that's
bad because we need ethanol to stop global warming. I think the Russia topic
would be a lot of the same disads with specific link arguments ? let's shoot
for some diversity.

K Ground:
Rubaie says: "saying Russia is "boring" and "stale" is a misplaced ad hom" ?
That fair. Rubaie and Calum's prose has moved me on the "sheer magnitude" of
Russia's importance yet every time this gets brought up it seems to have
almost nothing to do with US-Russian military cooperation. Nothing I have
read from the Russia camp so far has shown me that there is any K ground
other than Nuclear and Security. This is, I repeat, boring and stale. The Ag
topic is able to directly access a variety of new perspectives that we
haven't explored before. "Russia" is an important and interesting topic ?
but for this debate and this season centering it all around military
co-operation does not allow the access to all the issues you list off and
allows almost no new exploration of critical literature. I get that this
doesn't matter to a lot of people but it does to me. Russell says OU will
just read "Nietzche [sic] and Indians" ? zero uniqueness for this claim.

Russell says "Russia, russia, russia" - Yes, sweet noun - many promises of
big boom. But repeating a sweet noun does not a good topic make. And before
you give me another fine work of prose on the "awesomeness" of Russia and
how it has loads of nukes, remember that Calum will be giving exactly zero
2NR's on this topic and praises like "cities of ash" sound silly out of
anyone else's mouth.

-dylan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080423/99d20ab8/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list