[eDebate] Arms Control

Chris Stone cstone387
Sun Apr 20 16:25:54 CDT 2008

I agree there is the option of including other issues, but I'm not sure that
makes the topic any better if it lacks a mechanism. What is cooperation?
Foreign assistance? Treaties? Agreements? I understand you can limit the
areas - which the topic paper does - but I'm talking about a solvency
mechanism. You got cool harms areas, but quit getting distracted by shiny
things like our Orange Bowl trophy. Your argument about neocon hacks is not
convincing. The neg had to defend more conservative positions this year on
the Middle East topic, went ok. More than neocons write about why we should
keep our nuclear arsenal. What is the difference between necessitating and
allowing? If it's allowed, seems like it would get researched otherwise
you'd lose to the US-Russia coop aff.

Here is some business about the K. I am not sure what's better about Russia
for K teams. Is it the communism part of the Russia paper? I thought I
talked a bit about this in my original post, but what about the access to
proliferation based K literature like Mutimer and Gusterson? I'd also
imagine there is probably a good amount of K literature talking about the
NPT. Glue, you're just going to read the God K anyways.

Russell is write that OU beat Missouri. Thanks for the Orange Bowl birth, at
least we can close. Andy, I think you only get to talk about the Bronchos.
Are they even D1? And we still won the tournament. Most recent national
champions? Us. Did OU even make the tournament? I had prior commitments,
like you know, winning. Let's not even start on the 1988 game. Danny and the
Miracles. Remember them?

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>

> I suspect your concern about bilateral cooperation is that it needs to be
> more limited. I think we can limit it contextually ("bilat coop on trade,
> environmental, or military issues" is a hypothetical, unresearched, and
> almost assuredly unlimiting example) or, alternately, not limit it at all
> (to give individuals looking for a larger topic an option. The committee is
> not and has never been limited to the topic paper wordings. This controversy
> papers are jumping off points only. Bilateral cooperation with Russia is a
> stable area for ground; there is opposition to the very idea of cooperating
> with Russia which is JUST as good as the ground that opposes controlling
> nuclear weapons (which is, to say, not very good for many people who arent
> neocon hacks). Finally, allowing weapons prolif talks is not the same as
> necessitating it. OU also beat MU last year, if you'll recall. Also, my
> football team plays in a BCS bowl every other year. Dont hold your breath on
> KU, sweetheart. We wont even talk about OU CEDA finals records ;)
> J
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080420/59901d32/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list