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

David Glass gacggc
Wed Dec 24 02:22:40 CST 2008

The counterplan I'm worried about is the one that PICs out of the
"grand strategy" and just reduces the deployment

It seems like you can just cut deployment without having a "grand strategy"...

Wikipedia says : "Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of
movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources.
Military grand strategy includes calculations of economic resources
and man-power.

So if the Aff's grand strategy is to decrease the military budget, for
example, and part of that is decreasing deployments, the PIC
makes the debate just about the budget, and not about the deployment.
I mean that's fine, but perhaps
not the reason to write such a rez (?)

Is there an example of a good aff where the strategy is required for
the cut in deployment?

So far, no alternative broadening language has occurred to me which
isn't subject to the PIC.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Michael Antonucci
<antonucci23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ?
> As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable
> governmental process:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_strategy
> 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
> directives.
> 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
> counterplan.
> "Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan.  "Offshore balancing" also
> might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively written
> 1AC.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

More information about the Mailman mailing list