[eDebate] Gonzo/Russia

M G malgorthewarrior
Thu May 8 00:42:42 CDT 2008

None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with consult).  

The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the resolution-'two offers' comes to mind.  Regardless, let's assume it is competitive.  This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't have great solvency literature for.  This is normally checked back by core topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism.  The multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why security cooperation is bad.

And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia?  We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems for the aff or neg.  Why is no one bothered by this? 

is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered?  it seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v generic mechanism.  if a list is the best way to ensure equitable solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen from anyone), it should be considered.  

I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that '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' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always have crap to say so don't worry about it."

back to grand theft auto 4...

"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.

Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/16f2d59c/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list