[eDebate] heg topic

Michael Antonucci antonucci23
Fri Dec 26 03:17:52 CST 2008

"I'm sorry if the tone of my original response didn't please you (that I
didn't "cut you slack" on UAVs, for example)...this is the smartest thing
you've ever written. "

No worries.  If you weren't snarking aboard a sinking topic, we'd worry
about your health!  I hope you don't mind if I disregard the insults for
efficiency's sake, as my concern was simply that you seemed to ignore an
argument in your treatise.

"My concern is that the counterplans you're talking about put too much of a
limit on the aff, and even the big core affs might not have a defense of
changing the NSS (I think you mentioned this concern about offshore
balancing). So I think that forcing the aff to modify the NSS would not
"deter," but that it would
"force" debates about process. My concern is that it would look like the
courts topic, where many, many debates became about ammmendments, and the
didn't have much to say. Changing the National Military Strategy might be
more promising."

That's a valid concern.  I'd defend National Security Strategy
conditionally.  If this mechanism can produce a few core affs with
advantages tied to the actual NSS or NMS, I think it would work better than
grand strategy to corral affs.  If not, you're obviously quite correct.

I don't know if it can.  It's your topic.  I feel NSS/NMS is a proposition
that merits further testing through research.  You're welcome to disagree.

""Accelerate withdrawal" from anything is not a change in strategy, and yes,
I think the neg can win that."

Perhaps.  All snark aside, you'd help out that particular negative T debater
by changing your verb - "change in strategy" isn't in the hypothetical

"Adopt" doesn't denote novelty.  One adopts something existent.  An Okinawan
drawdown has been conceived, spawned, endorsed - but hasn't yet been fully
adopted.  My hypothetical aff would adopt a previously articulated and
endorsed grand strategy by completing its implementation.

Your choice of alternative verb matters.  How novel must an aff be?

"As for "withdraw one type of personnel," what types are you thinking of
here? Any ev for this? That it constitutes "grand strategy" and not, say,
operations or even tactics? The bit about not navigating between Scylla and
Charybdis is cute, but I think it might we worthwhile to navigate the ol'
internet and see if you can find evidence to support any of these positions.
Any ev that compares Congress to modifications in the National Security
Strategy? Any ev that we could do these various things covertly? I'm not
trying to be argumentative--I'm genuinely curious because if you've actually
done research for any of this I'll certainly have to take it seriously when
I'm recommending various wording options. "

I'll leave it to you to research out your own topic.  Your implication is
correct.  Aside from reading the articles you referenced, I do not have an
evidence base on a topic that does not and will not exist.  If that's the
price of admission to the conversation, I must decline your gracious

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/20081226/f8df1fc5/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list