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

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Thu Jul 10 15:19:36 CDT 2008

I agree with Jake's conclusion but not all of his reasons. I worry that
I will persuade him back to 1abc by explaining why I agree with him...


I think affirmatives can access any solvency mechanism available under
1abc with 2abc. The "at least" seems to allow mechanisms beyond just
subsidy cuts to avoid extra topicality problems. 


The primary differences seem to be:

1.       With 2abc, the affirmative cannot avoid subsidy cuts for the
purposes of disad links. With 1abc, they can run cases with other
mechanisms and leave the subsidies alone.

2.       With 2abc, the affirmative can theoretically do mechanisms
beyond what 1abc would allow. However, since the subsidy cut would also
have to be in there, it should be possible for the negative to PIC out
of anything they didn't want to talk about and push the debate back to
the subsidy part. 


Thus, 2abc seems to combine more affirmative flexibility with more
negative predictability. Since I'm not a fan of hard-wiring solvency
problems into the topic (and since a lot of cards use the word 'subsidy'
to speak about subsidies but also other mechanisms), I like letting the
affirmative do what they need to solve.


I'm not convinced the literature balance against subsidies will
translate into a topic balance favoring affirmatives. I think there are
tons of effects of subsidies which are decried by those opposing
subsidies but which can easily be turned by negatives. Plus, a lot of
that literature is not particular to all the types of subsidies so much
as the general concept. It may not give affirmatives great offense
against PICs.




From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of
Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:05 PM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c


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

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


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...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/5c258f36/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list