[eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c)

Dylan Keenan dylan.keenan
Thu Jul 10 13:12:00 CDT 2008


I think this is an interesting objection. Given that we should, as a
community, do everything in our power to make people read big stick
affirmatives at the center of the topic that link to everything, I think we
should take it seriously.

Here's why I think it is grammatically wrong. Consider two possible
resolutions:

1) Resolved:  that the United States Federal Government should substantially
reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the
domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.

2) Resolved:  that the United States Federal Government should substantially
reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the
domestic subsidies for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.

The first one is the resolution (2a) that is listed by the topic committee.
The second one is the same resolution with the comma after "subsidies"
deleted.

I think they mean very different things.

In my mind Jim is interpreting 1) like in a way that is actually fitting of
2).

What is the difference?

Well, 2) only says the aff has to reduce agricultural support, and says that
reduction in support for agricultural has to at least include substantial
cuts in subsidies for a list of crops.

However, 1) says that the aff has to reduce its agricultural support for a
set of listed crops and that reduction for the listed crops, at least has to
include a dramatic reduction in domestic subsidies.

Basically, I think Ermo is right but thinking about it in comparative terms
helps. The comma is relevant, and if you take it out you can see why the
resolution doesn't allow "topic-mandated extratopicality".

At a minimum I think there are two VIABLE readings of the resolution. One
which treates "agricultural support... for biofuels, cAFOs, corn, cotton,
dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat" as the object and asks
the affirmative to reduce that, including at least an elimination of
subsidies.

The other is the interpretation is the one Jim suggests. I'm no grammar
expert but that's my read.

-Dylan

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Morris, Eric R <
EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>
> Ermo
>
>
>
> 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.
> Here's why:
>
> 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.
>
> Jim Lyle
> Clarion University
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080710/651272d7/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list