[eDebate] [Nick] Ag 2008-2009
Thu Apr 24 01:21:05 CDT 2008
This is the first supporter of Ag who has not mentioned that they agree
with Quigley. I think the lone bastion of sanity should receive a reply;
"Haven't figured out what a nuclear weapon is? Haven't realized that the big
war with Russia that's been coming for 60 years isn't going to come? Want to
read Nyquist's articles every week? Vote Russia."
A fantastic argument against any topic -- "want to cut Beres every week??
Vote Middle East!" Counter-argument: Want to see if your version of Lexis
has the Tampa Tribune article from 1996? Vote ag.
"Interested in discussing whether or not we're turning the planet into a
giant wasteland? Think that people starving around the globe just *might* be
important to talk about? Maybe you're just sick of watching cows killed?
Those interested in saving the cows should absoutely consider Ag.
"That Russia is so big is an interesting point, but I think this has worked
sort of against it. In pretty much every foreign policy topic, from what
I've gathered, Russia not so subtly finds its way in. One of the first
debates at the ADI had a Russia war scenario, and it was all over the Middle
East topic. Plenty of people ran consult NATO with a Russia net benefit.
Plenty of people ran Russian-containment good/bad. It was a big component of
the Iran/Syria/Afghanistan debate. Does this mean reject Russia? No. Russia
would be a decent topic, but as Kris said, it might be nice to get something
new, especially after a huge foreign policy topic. If you're caught between
Russia and something new, why not something new?"
I'm having difficulty understanding whether the magnitude of the Russia
topic is or is not important. You called Russell's love for the size of the
topic an "independent voter," I presume because it was incorrect that topic
size matters? I'll discuss this more at the bottom.
Not sure who pulls the trigger on the IVI but if it's a BS gun they should
pull the trigger on the "we debate Russia all the time argument." Aside from
North Texas (in the last two tournaments of the year, no less), who read a
Russia scenario discussing Medvedev? There was a quarters round at CEDA
where someone didn't know what Gazprom was. My partner and I read Russia as
much as anyone I know and it was often a part of my 1NR. Researching the
topic paper was still quite a challenge because the material is very new,
even after cutting Russia updates for two years.
"Does this mean reject Russia? No. Russia would be a decent topic, but as
Kris said, it might be nice to get something new, especially after a huge
foreign policy topic. If you're caught between Russia and something new, why
not something new?"
People should all consider and perhaps even vote for Ag. However, your gut
reaction should not be "if I have a reservation to a topic I otherwise like,
I'll just vote for something cool and new."
Nick isn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last to make fun of the
grandeur used to describe Russia. If anyone has another way to describe a
topic that involves two superpowers, two major political transitions, and
every advantage area conceivable, please describe it. The terms used to
support the topic are enormous because the stakes of the topic truly are
enormous. With all due respect, our third point of support of Russia in
comparison to other topics will never involve cows.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman