[eDebate] Cormack/Professor/Ag Still Sucks
Wed Apr 23 20:06:00 CDT 2008
I had intended to be done with this, but Senor Quigles and The Muppet have
encouraged me to retort, briefly.
First, Cormack's uniqueness card is the worst card KU has cut in years. I
had, until today, believed that it could not get much worse; once again, KU
alums rise to the occasion. For those who love terrible cards, we salute
you. This evidence says Bush once considered that it would be "totally
awesome" if his "homies" in NATO would "keep it real" with Russia. No
substantive progress, no reason to believe NATO will agree, and, most of
all, the 6th time in 7 years Bush has made this suggestion. This evidence is
about as believable as a Cormack-Zive dreamteam at the Open Heart (make it
Second, the global economic UQ is considerably more significant in relation
to the ag topic than the Russia topic. The significance of economic
arguments to the negative's strategies on the ag topic will be central.
Downturns short of a depression (uhm, unlikely) will dramatically effect
that topic. Predictive uq answers dont deal will with the link/impact
relationship (resilience, eh). All Im saying is that the ag topic is
PRIMARILY economic, and the Russia topic isnt. And, in today's economic
climate, a topic that requires the neg to win an econ disad in many
instances is going to be worse for the neg.
Finally, specificity of the link to the impact solves. If your impact is
more specific (and in the case of Russia, it can be entirely sectoral, say
to military relations, or arms control coop, or even naval relations), then
the there's a generic direction of UQ problem is less significant. Yes,
disads will have to be more specific. This is a good thing, as you've
pointed out below in your "debating the case" area. You cant have your cake
and eat it too. Either specificity is good, or it isnt.
1) Case ground: Not a reason to prefer ag. People will also have cases on
the Russia topic. The difference is they wont be about soybeans. This is
good. Fuck soybeans.
2) PICs: Turns out, all of the topics have these.
3) Case Adv CPs: As all cases have advantages, these args are universally
4) Europe topic: TNWs was the reason no one ran ag. Also, I dont think it
had the "nearly all" loophole. And, finally, no recession. Also, ag is
boring, and the Europe topic proved that. We had the option, no one took it,
thats bc it stunk. Empirical evidence we already hated this topic. No reason
to hate it again.
5) Nearly All: Yes, hard to PIC on sanctions bc of nearly all. You were
playing T-ball at the time. I understand being confused.
6) EU CP: Facially stupid. Any aff that has no defense of US key is a
non-starter on any topic.
7) Caps: Again, already answered. They dont work. We have caps; people dont
abide by them. Lowering them doesnt solve the enforcement problem, and if
they were enforceable, the issue would be a nonstarter.
8) Generic CPs on Russia: Unilat/Multilat vs. Bilat, Conditions (specific to
military assistance to Russia, much like those included in CTR assistance),
and, all of YOUR areas (like PIC the advantage, delay, PIC spec parts of
1) Food prices/food security: Fundamentally still dependent on econ being ok
for the neg to do alright on this one. Also, food prices way up (you even
make args about how we have no security now). In less your arg is the
opposite of what I think it is, these disads are bonerific for now for the
2) Trade credib: While I understand that Wake used to win on this arg on
Europe, it doesnt appear to have played out quite like they thought back
then. Doha, still unresolved. Developing countries, still holding out for
concessions. And, Europe never did agree to match those concessions we said
we were willing to make. Seems to me like another arg that is likely to
become the newest aff adv.
3) Specific disads: If you dont think that there are good disads specific to
sectoral coop with Russia on, for instance, arms control, weapons
dismantling, TMD, interoperability, joint training, naval and air exercises,
arctic exploration/patrolling, space tech, you're even less creative than
you look. Each of these areas has exciting technological, governmental, and
military ramifications. The topic paper doesnt even mention some of the
domestic significance of the expansion of cooperation for the U.S. military
in terms of readiness, tech development, and spending priorities, all
additional, unique disadvantages that the ag topic doesnt come close to
matching. Yes, the areas have been discussed before. But so have famine,
poverty, economics, the environment, and trade. Any of these args on either
topic can be specific or can be generic. One will be about soybeans; one
will be about a very real risk of nuclear annihilation.
The topic doesnt dictate K's. Shut up. You wouldnt know a K if it hit you in
Finally, lots of people have a personal relationship to Russia. 1 in every 5
debaters is a Garen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman