[eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c
Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu
Thu Jul 10 15:04:50 CDT 2008
I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some
discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that
I disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and
think, based on his last post that he's already backed away from this
1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs
AND to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The
neg eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just
counterplanning out of that portion of the plan.
2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably
are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous
Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it
should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic
areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase)
'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like
Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few
people/groups outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists
who believe that subsidies should not be cut.
We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum
"solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people
believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous
idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting
subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US
Tariffs overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs
simultaneously, etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that
allowed the aff to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support.
It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps
this a "domestic" topic.
A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three.
Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a
lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot
more likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to
Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have
actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head.
just my 2-cents
Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D.
Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum
Assistant Professor In Residence
Greenspun College of Urban Affairs
Department of Communication Studies
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052
Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502
office (702) 895-3474
fax (702) 895-4805
cell (702) 809-9670
Rebel Debate on the web:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman