[eDebate] Possible Topic Area

bandana martin drmosbornesq
Tue Dec 23 09:37:40 CST 2008


but "k teams" don't matter

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Calum Matheson <u.hrair at gmail.com> wrote:

> thanks dylan.  here are my initial reactions, although i will have to do
> some research again to dig up evidence to support some of them, the cites
> for which i have forgotten.
>
> 1. enforceable meaning for grand strategy
>
> one thing i like about this phrase (and again--anyone with alternatives,
> let me know) is that it may make the aff implement broad changes in US
> strategy.  "grand strategy" can be distinguished from just "strategy," or
> more usefully, defined by its scope--iraq is one theater, as is afghanistan,
> the arctic, etc.  i think you could credibly define the term to force the
> aff to change US military policy in general--something like "selective
> engagement," or "offshore balancing," or "isolationism" is a dictate
> intended to govern american responses world wide.  world war II's "germany
> first" policy, for example, was a grand strategy, as is the policy of global
> military preponderance--they are partly defined by broad goals, not just
> actions to accomplish them.  this is the "levels of war" thing i was hinting
> at earlier.  here's a world war one example: artillery drumfire--tactical;
> the ludendorff offensives (1918)--operational; the attempt to capture the
> channel ports--strategic; the attempt to force the BEF off the continent
> (because jerry thought that meant winning the war)--grand strategic.
>
> you are probably right that some affs will try only to withdraw troops.
> however, i think there's a few things the neg has going for them: a) grand
> strategy = multiple theaters (above) b) the aff still has to "significantly
> reduce" presence (or some similar phrase) c) the word "deployed" helps to
> limit out the "coast guard missions" or whatever (maybe "forward deployed"
> would be even better?) d) ultimately, the aff has to withdraw troops from a
> place where there's an advocate to do so--the need for an advantage will
> limit out some of the very small fears.
>
> here's one definition of the word "deployed," just from dictionary.com:
> "To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line."
>
> 2. neg cheating
> to some extent this is unavoidable of course, but i'll talk about some of
> the specific things you've mentioned.  consult counterplans are a perennial
> plague, but in this case, a lot of them won't solve the case, and their net
> benefits are the reverse of the aff anyway.  would japan accept a US
> withdrawal from asia?  probably not, and if they did, it would seriously
> mess with the usual net benefit--the US-japan alliance.  NATO?  methinks
> they would say no, and if they said yes, same deal with the net benefit.
> russia would say yes, but the NATO-russia council would of course say "no,"
> as both the NAC and NRC operate based on consensus.  also, even if one
> doesn't like consult counterplans, at least they make sense on this topic.
> it's pretty much the thing that consultation is intended for, so i don't
> think it would be the end of the world--there's definitely going to be
> evidence about the topic.  probably about each individual aff.
>
> "redeploy without changing strategy" i think is not a concern either.  the
> withdrawal of troops is an example of grand strategy--if the plan only did
> this, and so did the counterplan, it wouldn't compete; if the plan did more
> than this, the c/p would be a pic and the aff would just have to win that
> the other parts of the plan were important.  i think it's like "lift
> sanctions but don't constructively engage" on last year's topic.  don't
> think you can do that.  as for all the temporary c/ps/redeploy elsewhere
> etc. i think they either wouldn't solve the aff, wouldn't have net benefits,
> or would just be impossible.  it takes a minute or two to redeploy, say,
> 100,000 troops from iraq.  if we decided to send them to korea, it would
> take months.  that's why we forward deploy in the first place.  there might
> be evidence about this, and so i could be wrong, but i think it's either not
> there, or not good enough to beat the aff.  "leave troops in this one place"
> will probably not compete--most advocates of disengagement don't think we
> should disengage everywhere; most affs won't put "all forces" or whatever in
> their plan; the net benefit to it is probably the opposite of the aff; there
> are only so many of those places to begin with and the aff will probably be
> ready.  the courts counterplan gets into a deference debate where there's at
> least literature (that, and a "that's crazy the world would explode" debate
> based on the courts dictating military strategy).
>
> 3. global u
> "global" uniqueness isn't global, actually--really just iraq.  the "you
> surrender american hegemony" disad, for example, will not be made not-unique
> by iraq withdrawal.  if the aff just withdrew from iraq and said that we
> were doing that anyway, it wouldn't really change grand strategy--it would
> only implement it.  we're probably going to ramp up presence in afghanistan,
> too, so there's that.  there will be theater disads unaffected by that too,
> like korea, japan, europe, and central asia.  other things like chinese
> aggression, appeasement, and russian imperialism (ahem) will be unaffected
> by iraq probably, or at least good ev will exist to suggest that they are.
> it might mess with the politics disad.  it's going to do that anyway,
> regardless of the topic.  and i don't think politics will be the best disad
> on a topic that requires a military draw down.
>
> 4. too expansive
> this is something i've thought about, and it's definitely a concern for the
> wording, but not a fatal one i think.  first, no matter what the aff does,
> they have to reduce US military deployments--bottom line.  those are where
> the best disads come from.  if they do stuff unrelated to that, the neg can
> easily pic out of it all.  this realization i think will mean that affs
> don't do it in the first place.  second, economic and diplomatic initiatives
> can plausibly be included in grand strategy--in fact, they usually are.
> there are narrower definitions though, like the one from robert art that
> distinguishes grand strategy from foreign policy by saying that all those
> other concerns are foreign policy, although (not in that quote) he
> acknowledges that the term is broad.  as always seems to be the case, i
> believe that the narrowest possible interpretation will probably come to be
> accepted as the orthodox one.  i hope no one poops their pants over this,
> but i don't think that having a lot of aff plan possibilities is so bad
> anyway.  i'd kind of prefer it, as long as some central theme pulls it all
> together, which in this case it does.
>
> something else about this that i think deserves saying.  i got a lot of
> backchannels last year before the tragic defeat of the russia topic (by
> nazis? most probably, yes) where people made fun of me for talking about the
> critical arguments possible on that topic, because no one defends the topic,
> or it's not a useful conceptual category, or "k teams" don't matter, or
> whatever.
>
> bite me.
>
> the critical ground on the grand strategy topic is, in my opinion, very
> strong.  i'll leave aside the low-hanging fruit of imperialism, orientalism,
> militarism, capitalism, nuclearism, and many, many others.  the aff gets to
> reduce US military deployment, so the lukewarm K affs could be excellent.
> "grand strategy" allows all sorts of interesting things, like military
> humanitarianism, that have solid critical defenses.  affs that don't want to
> defend a plan but instead do something more radical have great
> opportunities.  you get to say the military is bad.  seriously.  it's even
> topical.  there's a section in "metaphors we live by" by lakoff and johnson
> (if i'm remembering this correctly) about the way that "strategic" and
> military metaphors are used in debate--just one of many ways that one could
> use reference to this topic to make broader statements about the debate
> "community," if one wished to.  the neg critique ground is similarly
> strong--layne, gholz, press, and a variety of others who are the chief
> advocates of these affs are also offensive realists.  the usual mush of
> dillon, shapiro, tickner, and ashley cards, the plagues of generic critique
> debates, are now directly relevant.  trust me, they will make more sense
> when they actually link to the aff.  there will be an impact.  it will
> relate to the case.  i'm in favor of that simply on the grounds that we will
> be applying opposed arguments to each other in ways that make sense and for
> which they were intended.  not everyone is going to be happy, but then
> again, not everyone ever will.  this topic is better than most in that
> regard.  there might not be something for everyone, but it could be a whole
> lot worse.
>
> it could be courts.
>
> calum
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Dylan Keenan <dylan.keenan at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I like this topic idea ---- the impact lit is already fun, and would be
>> made better when it central to the topic (although ME seems to disprove this
>> a bit. How were people still getting away with Steinbach generic ME war goes
>> nuclear when it was pre Iraq). I agree with Calum that a lot of heg debates
>> are kind of shallow. Part of the problem is that the debate often ends with
>> "heg inevitable ? we just make the US good at it/make the world hate us
>> less" ---- this topic seems like, if well debated, it could avoid some of
>> that.
>>
>> I do have a few thoughts/concerns
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)      Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable
>> meaning? That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out
>> of Nigeria (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or
>> withdrawing from the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X
>> country and nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of
>> art, and is designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy
>> policy" or "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do
>> something significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more.
>> Given the idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is
>> perhaps necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS
>> reduce the quality of debate.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2)      Conversely, I think we should center a lot of the topic
>> discussion around how the neg will try to cheat and write the topic to
>> prevent that. Is it possible people will have a counterplan to redeploy
>> without changing grand strategy (basically do the plan under a different
>> name). To have host countries force the US out? Use temporary redeployment
>> to other areas? Consult CP is a concern that always arises. Since the
>> supreme court doesn't set grand strategy a courts CP may be used with some
>> stupid self serving justification like "tests grand strategy" ? or con/con
>> or amendment ? all that trash. And some possibly legit PICS (offshore
>> balancing except one brigade at one port which is at risk of terrorism).
>>
>>
>>
>> 3)      Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in
>> Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4)      Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides
>> military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically
>> sanctions or trade policy as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> A few pluses:
>>
>> 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt
>> it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play
>> with
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement
>> shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help
>> deal with negative BS counterplans
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing
>> disads.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson <u.hrair at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I
>>> suggested the phrase "grand strategy."  I'm certainly open to alternative
>>> suggestions.
>>>
>>> "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to
>>> a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular
>>> military objective.  Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by
>>> the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to
>>> achieve American objectives.  I want the aff to be able to do things other
>>> than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and
>>> be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc.  The phrase
>>> "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions)
>>> only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for
>>> example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist).
>>>
>>> "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to
>>> explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my
>>> understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the
>>> conduct of the military.  So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation
>>> around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but
>>> the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental
>>> Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them).  I could
>>> certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do
>>> evil).
>>>
>>> Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if
>>> you wish) alternate terms?  "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary
>>> limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force
>>> deployment.  The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary
>>> limit.
>>>
>>> Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used:
>>>
>>> Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing,
>>> including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of
>>> Illusions," for example).
>>>
>>> This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:"
>>> "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices
>>> that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy
>>> in one fundamental respect.  To define a nation's foreign policy is to
>>> lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and
>>> then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power,
>>> military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and
>>> employed with one another to achieve those goals.  Grand strategy, too,
>>> deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it
>>> concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to
>>> achieve them.  It prescribes how a nation should wield its military
>>> instrument to realize its foreign policy goals."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to"
>>>>
>>>> grand is obv problematic
>>>> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so consider:
>>>>
>>>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should  significantly
>>>> reduce its overseas military deployment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson <u.hrair at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another
>>>> one
>>>> > too, about US military policy.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm thinking about something like this:
>>>> > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand
>>>> strategy
>>>> > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment.
>>>> >
>>>> > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of
>>>> > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options
>>>> like
>>>> > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on.
>>>> Policy
>>>> > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course,
>>>> but
>>>> > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power
>>>> than
>>>> > that to which we have recently been accustomed.
>>>> >
>>>> > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me
>>>> for
>>>> > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual
>>>> strategy
>>>> > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when
>>>> > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as
>>>> opposed
>>>> > to the simple level of its power.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like
>>>> this:
>>>> > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially
>>>> change
>>>> > one or more of its operational doctrines.
>>>> >
>>>> > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat
>>>> > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm
>>>> not
>>>> > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there
>>>> seems
>>>> > to be some interest.  I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p
>>>> ground is
>>>> > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden
>>>> sharing,
>>>> > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and
>>>> it
>>>> > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics,
>>>> namely
>>>> > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the
>>>> terms
>>>> > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much
>>>> > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in
>>>> > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the
>>>> electronic
>>>> > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com.
>>>> >
>>>> > Calum
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > eDebate mailing list
>>>> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eDebate mailing list
>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dylan Keenan
>> Debate Coach
>> Barkley Forum
>> Emory University
>> dylan.keenan at gmail.com
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/343aa145/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list