Wed May 7 21:37:39 CDT 2008
Gonzo's arg about "getting bored" with consult Japan applies to every
foreign policy topic and about 1/2 of all domestic topic aff's that affect
foreign policy. For every consult CP, there is an equally annoying domestic
actor CP. This is an arg for getting substantively better at debating
consult and for JUDGES being more willing to reject the orthodoxy that says
"if there's evidence for it, it must be theoretically legit". That said,
this can't be a reason to reject all foreign policy topics.
Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's
been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was
because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like
unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with
the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and
specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic
defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature
that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic
authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says
that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral
coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and
multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed
topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide
array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a
diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff.
Gonzo is going to fall asleep in round 7 of GSU anyway. He wont know if you
ran consult Japan or Foucault. Dont believe the hype.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman