Thu May 8 10:09:38 CDT 2008
First off, Putin couldn't take me. He may be some kind of bad ass Russian, but i grew up on a swamp! MY BEST FRIEND WAS A SNAKE!!
I'm not going to front like i've been posting evidence, and I also didn't read every article on the list of citations, but hey i'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a dec card or two in those articles.
A quick question about bilateral-what makes an aff bilateral? Is an aff that just requires russia to accept and use US money/tech/human capital in a certain way bilateral? It just seems that if the aff can increase funding for bilateral programs (programs that just have the US and Russia spend money, and maybe share a few human resources) there will be very few affs the unilateral cp solves for. If you are solving problems in russia it just seems most affs will require bilateral coop which the cp doesn't solve. I'm not saying the cp isn't viable, just curious and could use an example to understand it better.
On the global uniqueness question-the statement that the global uq question won't matter proves the disconnect between how we discuss things and how we debate things. The China topic is undeniable proof of this. We never pressured China over currency, or threatened to end trade over human rights the entire topic, but a substantial percentage of rounds were decided on pressure now/not now. Let's face it, some disads will rely on bilateral cooperation, some will rely on security cooperation. Either way in actual debate rounds the aff will inevitably swarm to the "cooperation now all your offense is non uq" trick. Maybe we'll get lucky and it won't happen until 2nd semester, like it did on China. But even if Russell is conceptually right in debate world it's proven to work the other way.
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman