[eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c)
Morris, Eric R
Thu Jul 10 12:05:14 CDT 2008
I would be surprised if the community gravitated toward an
interpretation that explicitly and intentionally mooted the term "at
least". I think nearly any interpretation would be preferred ahead of
intentionally mooting a term.
Instead, I think it is more likely that the list at the end would be
seen as modifying the reduction in agricultural support (reduce
agricultural support for ...... corn), with the "at least" part meaning
get rid of domestic subsidies for corn and maybe some other agricultural
support for corn.
Even if you CAN read the "at least" as altering the crop list (instead
of just the subsidies part), that interpretation would be hard to
sustain relative to one which preserves the crop list as voted upon.
p.s. But, I agree about the (a) because the farm bill list is like 25
items, most of which are much smaller than the heavily subsidized crops.
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of James Lyle
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:00 PM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c)
It's amazing that there has been ZERO discussion of the resolutions
since the topic meeting. So, here's a late appeal for one of the "1"
resolutions. Although I think "a" is the best area since the 29
commodities listed under Title 1 scare me a little, I think the need for
"1" is clear.
Originally I thought the 2nd set were better but have changed my mind.
If you read the resolutions, you will see that the independent clause
(which holds the subject and primary verb) is "usfg substantially reduce
Ag support." The dependent clause, which modifies this statement is
either "by eliminating all/nearly all" (close-ended qualifer) or "by
eliminating at least" (open-ended qualifier). If this read is accurate
then an aff that reduces an explicit topic commodity AND another form of
ag support is topical. For instance, under 2c an aff that reduces corn
and fishery subsidies is topical because both actions are "subs redux of
ag support" and the "at least" phrase justifies the fish action even
though it isn't listed. The solution to this problem would be a
topicality interpretation that says ignore "at least" and go by the
explicit verbage of the resolution. If this is the accepted
interpretation, then an aff that included export subsidies and/or market
access barriers would not be topical. While the ability to counterplan
out of the "topic-mandated extra-topicality" (or the above identified
approach to T) solves the concern a Neg team may have with the
resolution, the Aff needs to be guaranteed export subsidies and/or
market access barriers (especially since the best forms of topic
creativity probably lie in the mechanism area of the rez as opposed to
the crop portion).
Anyhow, that's my read.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman