[eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c
Thu Jul 10 15:51:13 CDT 2008
The degrees of aff flex are so minor within the narrow range of choices
that it seems like, once again, we're asked to select from among the
same shades of pomegranate.
The discussion is good, but still muted...probably because the main
choices have already been made. We basically know the topic already
with a few minute differences. As DCH put it well, we still have to
defend a "post-subsidy world." Multiplying the "number of affs" by a
certain number is a misnomer when they are versions of the same
essential type of advocacy.
Looking forward to the "revealing" of the topic.
From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com]
On Behalf Of David Cram Helwich
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:31 PM
To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c
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
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:
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman