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

David Cram Helwich cramhelwich
Thu Jul 10 15:31:03 CDT 2008


Aff bias? Right now, I disagree, pretty strongly. The aff harms lit is good,
but affirming is likely to be pretty hard.

Couple of observations:
1. Politics DA links are brutal and pretty unidirectional. ConAgra can
outlobby Oxfam. This will force affs to go tiny on mech/subsidy, which may
not work b/c there are pretty good links to things like oil seeds, or to go
big to outweigh the DA. I'm fine with either.
2. Solvency lit is limited--there are not that many articles that we have
found so far that make a good case for a defensible 'post subsidy' world.
This is true for the 7 commodity crops we have researched so far, and we are
not exactly slouches.
3. There is plenty of lit on the far-ish left saying lifting subsidies is
bad for policy-friendly reasons.
4. K links are also pretty brutal. The link turn of 'we're pro-poor people'
will work for about three rounds before it is swamped by
incrementalism/reformism bad cards that are mech-specific.

Aff flex, please.



On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:04 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/20080710/62b98545/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list