[eDebate] "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security"

Michael Antonucci antonucci23
Tue Dec 23 18:55:49 CST 2008

Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ?

As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable
governmental process:

It seems to address your concern that  we debate "a broader policy, by the
civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to
achieve American objectives."

This wording would more explicitly enable the counterplan(s) to implement
the aff through legislation, covert action, or purely internal military

The counterplan might succeed as a limiting function where a simple T debate
based on the well-documented but imprecisely defined adjective "grand" might
fail.  Only advantage ground based on the perceived legitimacy of a declared
strategic change would meaningully differentiate the plan from the

"Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan.  "Offshore balancing" also
might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively written

If you loathe this range of counterplans, of course, you might want to
rephrase the original, since "grand strategy" carries a weaker but
definitely existent association with the National Security Strategy, right?

Personally, I'm agnostic, since everyone will probably vote for that topic
to get it on with tattooed dolphins or whatever.  It seems worthwhile,
though, as an exercise, to determine if you want that range of counterplans
or not.

Michael Antonucci
Debate Coach
Georgetown University
Mobile: 617-838-3345
Office: 202-687-4079
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/8b0dfe56/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list