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

Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Jacob.Thompson
Thu Jul 10 17:44:54 CDT 2008


I think that D-Cram is both right and wrong... 

When was the last time that we debated a topic that pretty much every 
group across the political spectrum (from the far left to libertatrians) 
agreed that the rez was a good idea?  This is an aff-biased topic... Even 
if there isn't much defense of a "post subsidy world" by aff solvency 
authors, there certainly is a ton of folks saying "let's get rid of 
subsidies."  Anything that Bush, Libertarians, Oxfam International and 
Vandana Shiva all agree on is definitionally aff biased. 

1) yes the politics links will be awesome, but the link turns aren't 
oxfam, they're blue dog dems, fiscal discipline republicans, enviro 
lobbies, etc.  Let's be honest the farm lobby/conagra is strong, but most 
people hate subsidies--I think that the link/link turn debates on politics 
will be robust if affs are smart and creative.

2) The K links are good, the critical aff literature is good too.  K link 
turns may sometimes lose to incrementalism/reformism args, but I hope 
(when my teams are aff anyway) that it takes them more than 3 rounds to 
start to those 2NC link args (4 or 5?).

3) I ain't too proud--can you send me some cites for those devistating 
far-ish lefties who love subsidies?


Jake


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



"David Cram Helwich" <cramhelwich at gmail.com> 
07/10/2008 01:31 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 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/20080710/39f5d9f1/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list