[eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!!

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Sat Jul 12 14:29:50 CDT 2008


I think Ed is correct. Let that be known generally.

In particular I think that CAFOs and fisheries are, as Ed argues,
particularly important to include in the topic. I have less of an opinion on
the stable mechanism question, but between major crops, biofuels, fisheries,
and animal raising we have covered, even if in a technically and maybe
cumbersomely worded way, all the major areas of food politics today.

But, the stable mechanism solves concerns about aff. proliferation if you
know in your break round at CEDA or the NDT that your "disadvantages" and
"counter plans" based on cutting subsididies will be there, like always,
ready, waiting. And including the other core ethical and political questions
concerning what we eat - which is probably the most important thing we do -
in the topic seems like, er, a good idea.

Also, it will guarantee that debates this year will not be boring. Fun is an
important, underpresented voting issue that should be included along with
fairness, education, and jurisdiction.

RG



On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 6:08 AM, ed lee <bamadebate at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am having a little difficulty understanding why we should include all the
> other Title 1 crops that are not listed.  Clay's concern about new AFFs
> resignates with me.
>
> More importantly, I think the trade of fish, sugar, cafos for mohair,
> lentil, and barley is a terrible one pedagogically.  We are moving from a
> rich and very deep research base to one that seems very shallow. Factory
> farming and fishing and just just far more important politically,
> culturally, and environmentally.
>
> The opposition to fish and cafos is that they expand the literature base
> and makes life harder on the neg.  We exist in a era of debate were our
> constructions of what is theoritically legitimate advocacy for neg is
> limitless.  CPs and K alts have made is extremely difficult to be AFF.
> Diversifying the areas that the AFF gets to play in is one way to compensate
> for this.
>
> The areas should not be limitless.  Clay's post identifies a couple of DAs
> to that.  I am also concerned about how the smaller crops interact with one
> another to compromise the Negs ability to generate a unique link to their
> DA.   If I cut chickpeas there seems to be a political incentive to ratchet
> up payments for another pulse crop as political cover.  This interaction
> could also play out with long and short rice. There are probably other
> areas.  If our goal is to maximize AFFs possibility of winning competitive
> debates were they read new affs, I think the addition of smaller Title 1
> crops will do that.  However, if we want to incentivize the AFF to explore a
> richer literature base and have te Neg continously advance our curriculum by
> doing specific research in those areas than it seems limted diversification
> of the areas is a better option.
>
> For those concerned about Negative's competitive success the best way to
> guarantee that is via a stable mechanism.  A stable mechanism gives the Neg
> an opportunity to construct a set of core generics (CP + NB) that has wider
> applicibility.  I am much more concerned about the resolutions that give the
> AFF 3 options for mechanisms than I am about the areas the AFF gets to play
> in.  The mechanism determines the guality of the AFFs link turns in
> relationship to the link.  The mechanism determines whether may counterplan
> is competitive.  The mechanism determines whether Clay will have a unique DA
> to the new aff in the semis of the NDT next year.  If you are truly
> concerned about the neg then give them a stable mechanism - force the the
> AFF to cut subsides.
>
> Stable mechanism good for NEG
> Diversified areas good for AFF
> Vote 2a
>
> peace,
> edlee
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Davis <davismk13 at gmail.com>
> To: Clay Webb <webb767 at gmail.com>
> Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:17:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!!
>
> I am really confused. Is the neg going to have lots of pics or are
> they going to have no shot of winning?
>
> Also you say "more aff options......fewer surprises in important
> rounds" It seems if the aff has more options there are more chances
> for surprises.
>
> And guess what someone is going to PIC out of a single corn or sugar
> grower or a single CAFO that does things a little differently (I have
> found several of these already). These counterplans are coming
> regardless of the list.
>
> The part of these resolutions that limits out the one bad guy aff is
> you have to remove all or nearly all of a single crop. Not just one
> type of lentil or chickpea. You will be able to win a politics link to
> any of the commodity one crops. The crackpots on the negs side that
> support subsidies to these crops are better than most of the aff
> authors.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Clay Webb <webb767 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake
> > forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0,
> 5-0,
> > 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist.
> 1
> > GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a
> > link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't
> > link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy
> or
> > large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal
> links
> > for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the
> > advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do
> > link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get
> > angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM
> > all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero
> > point of the holocaust.
> >
> > K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground.
> >
> > To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic:
> >
> > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel.
> > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel.
> > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel.
> > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel.
> > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel.
> > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound.
> > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight.
> > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight.
> > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel.
> > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight.
> > (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year,
> > the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows:
> > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel.
> > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel.
> > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel.
> > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel.
> > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel.
> > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound.
> > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight.
> > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight.
> > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel.
> > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight.
> > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight.
> > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight.
> > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight.
> > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight.
> >
> >
> > You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read
> the
> > 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your
> > Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders
> on
> > insanity.
> >
> > Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over
> CAFO
> > and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal.
> >
> > C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel.
> > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel.
> > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel.
> > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight.
> > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight.
> > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight.
> > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight.
> > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight.
> >
> > sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed,
> > mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated
> > by the Secretary.
> >
> > crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you
> get
> > the point.
> >
> > in exchange for
> >
> > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries
> >
> > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more
> aff
> > options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to
> talk
> > about Lentils.
> >
> > I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't
> matter
> > much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just
> > chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas.  And even if you pull
> > off  the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these.
> >
> > Types of Lentils
> >
> > Brown/Spanish Pardina
> > French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green)
> > Green (Most common variety)
> > Black/Beluga
> > Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside)
> > Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils)
> > Eston Green (Small green)
> > Richlea (Medium green)
> > Laird (Large green)
> > Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils)
> > Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside)
> > Pigeon Peas
> > Channa Dal
> > Mung Lentils
> > Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils)
> > Chana (Kernel of chickpeas)
> > Urad (A type of bean)
> > White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans)
> > Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered)
> > Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils)
> >
> > CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net
> > Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to
> > hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even
> > shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south,
> Petite
> > Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of
> > people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still
> > enough to outweigh your stupid advantage.
> >
> > Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever
> > stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the
> > advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse
> > creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is
> completely
> > irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (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 THIS????
> >
> > Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of
> fresh
> > air.
> >
> > Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already
> > discussed.
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Davis
> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
> James Madison University
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080712/267d9b7b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list