[eDebate] More from Cormack on Ag

Dylan Quigley dylan.quigley
Wed Apr 23 18:44:24 CDT 2008

Forwarded on from Cormack:

I am glad we are having a discussion about ag.  It is helpful to get an idea
of where people stand.

I am disturbed by Jason's overwhelming love of the Russia topic...seriously
dude, chill out.  I am pretty sure that whichever topic is picked debate
will go on and good teams will win and bad teams will lose.

I really think that the Russia supporters are missing the big picture by
slugging it out over the details.  Russia might be a great topic, but the
benefit of something "different" in the ag topic should be embraced - see
Kris' post.  I agree with Jason that 'domestic' vs. 'foreign' is silly
considering the overlap but I think that a better distinction might be
'military/security' vs. 'social non-nuclear war' issues.  Russia will be a
military security topic - see  all of Jason's posts and his infatuation with
all of Russia's nukes.

A few quick points:

1) This is a problem for Russia.  Read this (
I admit this isn't a crippling problem but we all seem to be in agreement
that it is annoying.
2) Specific Links don't solve.  Negs will always have to go for generics,
the beginning of the year and new affs.  Good teams will have better more
specific links.  Thanks.  The uniqueness is still a problem - regardless of
the link.
3) Jason does have a very good point about the impact level uq on ag.  I
think that there is a difference in these types of debates.  The specific
uniqueness of a DA is always debatable.  Even if the economy is looking
great good teams will read predictive evidence that says it will decline.
If we enter a depression during the year I imagine a) the Russia topic will
also change dramatically and b) the ag debate might even get more
interesting.  If we don't enter a depression we will probably still have an
econ DA.

1) If there is such a HUGE aff bias on ag and NO NEG ARGS then why was it
such a small part of the Europe topic?  The answer is either a) you are
wrong, there is good neg on ag or b) the communities obsession about talking
about nukes is so great that people are willing to risk losing to talk about
nukes.  Either way I believe that ag is the way to go.
2) Dylan hit some ag neg arguments.  I will say that the state economy DA's
in the topic paper are a bit sketchy but they could be worse.  I want to
emphasize his point about case debates.  I think they would be pretty good
and winnable options for the neg.  Maybe some people don't like that, that
is up to them.
3) I want to add CP's to solve advs.  I think there are tons of CPs that
could solve ag advs.  For example, take global poverty.  There are countless
proposals on how to best solve it, each is a potential CP.  There are also
args that say many of these will fail without removing subsidies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080423/ea305d63/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list