[eDebate] On Global Uniqueness
Thu Apr 24 13:32:21 CDT 2008
More tomorrow once I have time to write more than a few sentences, but....
If global uniqueness is a worry (and I believe that Brett makes a strong
case for why it is) then I would strongly urge people to have another look
at the universal health insurance/care topic.
I will, right now, throw down every penny to my name that the negative will
NOT have any problems convincing judges that a USFG guarantee of universal
health insurance would represent a sizeable deviation from the status quo.
I would encourage people to take some time and give the paper a read,
particularly the sections discussing policy change, to get a sense of the
tremendously deep and high quality lit surrounding the topic.
The paper can be read here: http://www.cedatopic.com/Health_Care_08.pdf
For a GREAT panel discussion of the issue, listen to the stream of
yesterday's 11 am segment on the Diane Rehm Show, featuring Gail Wilensky,
Dr. David Himmelstein, and Dr. Denis Cortese. It's a very worthwhile
listen, and helps to elucidate some of the very, very strong reasons why
health care reform is THE core public policy controversy of the moment, as
well as the depth of debate and expertise of advocates on both sides of the
Links to the webcast can be found here:
More to come,
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Chris Stone
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:11 PM
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] From Bricker - On Global Uniqueness
The topic discussions of the last three years have represented core
negative ground as the opposite of the mechanism of the resolution. On
China, negatives would have pressure bad arguments. On Courts, negatives
would have overrule bad arguments. On Middle East, negatives would have
Constructive Engagement bad arguments. Nearly every strategic affirmative
mooted this ground by either:
a) Choosing an affirmative that was not much larger than the direction of
the status quo. Examples: Earthquakes, any Lebanon aff, any Afghanistan
aff, Refugee assistance to Syria, Whitman's Quirin aff, Every Dartmouth CS
aff on the China topic, etc.
b) Reading a massive "status quo is similar to the plan" underview to the
Examples: Every new aff at the NDT, Every aff read by Kansas JS, etc.
I believe that the topic discussion of the last three years has
overestimated the ability for "core negative ground" to really stand a
chance. The uniqueness discussion between Russia supporters vs. Ag
supporters is an important one; however, the fact that the discussion is
EVEN HAPPENING underscores a really important point about the Russia topic.
If Russia wins, a large portion of debates will be focused around the
question of: "Is the plan a large enough break from the status quo to
trigger the link to a disadvantage that is based on bilateral cooperation?"
These debates, to quote Dylan, "are the zero point". They are
uneducational, avoid the question posed by the heart of the topic, and
massively favor the affirmative. The negative must overwhelmingly win this
argument just to get back to GROUND ZERO with regards to their disadvantage.
While I agree with Cormack (that Russell can't read), Quigley (about the
K ground), and Stone (Ag would be cool), I am not writing this with an
ag-support intent. My goal is to have voters consider the importance of
global uniqueness, and to support a topic that avoids this discussion
altogether. I believe that the topics that best fit this mold are
reparations and agriculture. Each have other advantages and disadvantages,
but I believe all of those pale in comparison to a fourth year in a row of
"our plan is pretty much like the status quo".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman