[eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Jul 10 15:11:30 CDT 2008


The problem is that many things that are not considered subsidies (like RPS)
would confound the ability of any affirmative to solve if not included.
Good resolutions must include the removal of subsidies PLUS other forms of
agricultural support that do the same things as subsidies but technically
are not subsidies.

In addition, the PIC out of half the affirmative does limit the negatives
net benefits (at least the generic ones) because the CP also would eat most
of those...In other words, there is still a strategic value to forcing that
cp.

Ian Asturbury

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM, <Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu> wrote:

>
> 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 reading).
>
> 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
> posts.
>
> 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.
>
> Additionally:
>
> 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
>
>
> Jake
>
> 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:
> www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080710/65871f93/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list