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

James Lyle jrlyle
Thu Jul 10 13:40:47 CDT 2008


Dylan's post makes sense to me (and is why I initially thought 2 was
better).  I managed to miss the comma in my re-readings (guess the other 10
got in the way).  If the Dylan/Ermo interpretation is what people are
selling then I'm probably buying.  But, I am concerned that people may
advance the other interpretation, or comparable interpretations, that
ultimately work to force market access barriers and export subsidies out of
the topic.

I guess it's just real easy to get caught up in the qualifying portions of
the resolution(s) and end up with interesting distortions.


On 7/10/08, Dylan Keenan <dylan.keenan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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/cc38ed6b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list