[eDebate] Fw: New Entry at CEDA Topic

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Wed Jun 4 08:30:16 CDT 2008


Hi all,
 
A few general thoughts about the topics--thanks to Jim for posting the list on edebate and thanks to the topic committee for a TON of difficult research.  Most folks are following this closely on the blog, but I wanted to pose a question on edebate to see if there are some opinions about the topic writing process.
 
First of all--passive voice or a non-USFG agent do not really make sense here.  We have debated a topic in the past that had "the non-agricultural industries" take action so it might have been possible to think about a few non usfg agents based on the topic paper, but it appears that a very narrow interpretation of the topic paper is used to inform the wordings and there is little deviation from that route.
 
Secondly, given the narrow focus, is there a new pattern developing in the topic construction process?
 
Not so long ago, we moved to more and more specific terms of art (this all in the USFG agent-hegemony era) such as security assistance.  That was narrow enough so we moved to lists.
 
Lists have lost popularity because they are very obvious about prescribing the aff plan, requiring affs that want agent creativity to go way off the board.
 
So now, combining a number of narrowing approaches, the Stables-Mancuso path appear to be this:  take the phrase in the topic paper (constructive engagment or agricultural support, for example) and then proceed to define it in a fairly narrow and lengthy second component of the resolution.  There are positives and negatives to this approach.
 
so, third, respectfully, is there a way to add one topic to the list (probably not, and I understand)?  The topic that needs to be added is your PREFIX.  The affirmatives and negatives can sort out the post-prefix in the debates.
 
So resolution #.5 would be:
 
Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support.
 
It would not be as bad as you think....and maybe it should at least be on the ballot (if it is that bad, no one will vote for it). 

This post is more gneral than anything that requires a response on the blog....just wanted to comment.  Again, thanks for all the incredibly tough research and thinking you all are doing.

 

sincerely, kevin

Resolution #1

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for one or more of:  biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.

Resolution 1b:

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Resolution #2

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for one or more of:  biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.

Resolution #2b:

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Resolution #3

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support as measured by the Producer Support Estimate for one or more of:  biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.

Resolution 3b:

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support as measured by the Producer Support Estimate for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Resolution #4

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, at least eliminating all or nearly all domestic subsidies, for one or more of:  biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.

Resolution 4b:

Resolved:  The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, at least eliminating all or nearly all domestic subsidies for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities)  in the 2007 Farm Bill.

 
 
 



More information about the Mailman mailing list