[eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!!
Sat Jul 12 01:32:37 CDT 2008
As a preface, I just want to say that I have nothing but love for Clay
and the Mo-state crew. Congrats on an astounding NDT. I have done
little to no research on any of the resolutions. For specifics Mike
Davis's post should suffice.
Clay and Al Hammadi:
To be fair this "who gives a damn about Lebanon" argument sounds very
much like a 2NR defensive "you don't solve your advantages" claim. "ONE
GUY!?" Yes, one guy. Wake made the claim that this terrorist, who has
been walking the streets of Lebanon for years, is /THE /critical
internal link to American resolve in their Global war on terrorism.
Come on, that's just silly. As persuasive as Gannon's visual imagery of
bodies being thrown on the tarmac was - do these advantages sound
overwhelmingly persuasive to you? Do you need evidence to pick apart
their solvency claim that one action is enough to revamp the overall
perception of America and its GWOT? If it is true that all we have to
do is send a message every once in a while that the terrorists can't
win, then what about: Our resolve in Iraq? Our willingness to torture
those terrorists that we catch? Afghanistan much? And donde esta
Osama? I find the notion that future "terrorists" would throw down
their plans of attack, and wave the white flag after hearing reports
that the US transported Al Hammadi to Guantanamo Bay, astoundingly
hilarious. A recent AP poll of future "terrorists" actually returned
with a 90% response rate of "Al-Hammadi who?"
"No generics!" Everybody Run!
That's not a fair assessment of the plan. It substantially increased
foreign assistance to Lebanon. Here's a strategy that oozes GWOT resolve:
CP - Airlift US Marines into Lebanon and take Al Hammadi, and his little
dog too, from Lebanon without giving them a dime. NB = Increasing 200
million dollars to Lebanon is bad. CP - Give Lebanon the money, and ask
Lebanon nicely for Al Hammadi. NB - US-Lebanon relations. Pressure vs.
CP - We already gave Lebanon 250+ million dollars - tell them to give us
Al Hammadi or we won't pay them all the money. Or threaten to halt any
see future foreign assistance or US engagement. NB - You never pass
legislation that allocates money to Lebanon.
Politics would be your crutch. Some may take offense to your describing
politics in such a feeble manor. You say crutch, I say rocket
launcher. Jokes aside, as weak as the funding net benefits may be, the
internal to GWOT resolve may be even weaker. It's a debate to be had.
These strategies could have been flushed out in August when the topic
came out. They effectively move the debate away from Al Hammadi and
towards the central question of whether it's a good idea to increase
foreign assistance to Lebanon. These strategies would have been
strategic while also provided avid space for good debate and clash.
Next years topic -
Tiny affirmative that claim big advantages often have problems accessing
their advantages. Affirmatives that provide themselves insignificant
ground to defend will most likely die by the massively awful generic
arguments that deal with the political issue of reducing ag support. Biz
con, elections, politics, states, courts, etc.
"(1) Adding all this refuse creates limitless potential for race to the
bottom shit that is completely
irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS????"
I know little to nothing about lentils other than it's a major food
staple for South East Asians. I'm ready and willing to learn about the
topic. Debaters always seem to find a way to make these debates
interesting. I can just imagine the Yellow/Tan vs. Black/Beluga lentils
debate. One causes heart disease but is a cancer preventative, and is
key to hegemony, while the other is delicious, has a lot of fiber, and
solves warming. If these cards exist I want to hear them.
(2) All of this begs the question, what is the point of including
something in the topic that isn't worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ
"Isn't worth debating."
All this discussion of food is making me hungry. This statement just
begs the question of what the advantages to such a weird aff will be. I
find it difficult to imagine too many solvency advocates that
differentiate between different types of Oats with the added advocacy of
reducing agricultural support for one or the other. In the event that
someone goes through the trouble and wants to ban support for the the
Al-Hammadi-Oat, instead of the GWOT-Oat, because that GWOT-Oat uses less
pesticides, I will find it pretty astounding that you don't have
pesticides defense/offense, and you're not prepared to go all in on the
political ramifications of reducing support for Ag in the middle of an
election year. Regardless of how awful some of the arguments in the neg
toolbox may be, you still have something to say. If debate is hard
research harder. Besides, in your near infinite negative prep time
between now and GSU you may develop a plethora of ridiculously smart,
but generic arguments that you can carry in your satchel for those "in
case of emergency new aff" situations. Break glass at your own risk.
More information about the Mailman