[eDebate] Fw: New Entry at CEDA Topic

Beth Skinner beth.skinner
Wed Jun 4 11:55:34 CDT 2008


I would vote for a topic like the one Kevin proposes (or maybe USFG should
substantially limit its agricultural support programs, USFG should
substantially curtail agricultural subsidies in the US, USFG should
substantially limit agricultural subsidies).  Recognizing that topic
selection is hard work, that you can't please all the people all the time,
etc. I'll just say that the less latitude affirmatives have to make
meaningful choices the more likely they are to opt out of the topic
altogether.  I can imagine ways to interpret any of these short resolutions
in ways that have meaning to the lives of people I work with.  Despite
reading the blogs and minutes and watching some of the streaming video, I
can't say the same about the topics listed.  Beth

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Kuswa, Kevin <kkuswa at richmond.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080604/e9f5d7d7/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list