[eDebate] Gonzo/Russia

J T jtedebate
Thu May 8 11:23:28 CDT 2008

which point does this disagree on...I said the same about the middle east topic...one where the only real "generic" was the K...people wen the K route, and others developed "generic" strategies within the specific countries...why is a grand unifying generic strategy necessarily good?  I am certainly sympathetic to the small school issue, but if you didn't die out last year, you'll survive

David Cram Helwich <cramhelwich at gmail.com> wrote: I disagree with one of JT's point--

Malgor, Dylan's and others' point is that a lack of unifying ground in the topic ensures that teams go uber-generic in crafting their fallback negative strategies. The mideast topic did not offer core, topic-specific negative ground. Realizing this, the Gophers' first two negative assignments were a Geographic Aesthetics K and Consult EU. Obviously, we have a really young squad that is still finding its research legs, but we still went for those arguments in a TON of debates, even some late in the season against new and/or corner affs. 
On the flip side, on the energy topic, Mac's first three neg files were an oil prices DA, a coal prices DA, and a natural gas prices DA. I think that most people would agree that it was easier to be negative on the energy topic.

head gopher

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:
   The issue of generics doesn't go far...That was the case this year! There were no good generics that applied to ALL the topic countries...much less the smaller cases.  We all survived...there will always be small affs your generics don't solve--on every topic. I think a way to counteract the concerns of Keenan Et al is to have your generic strategies particular to the area...i.e., your generics covering Arms Control cases might not apply to Peacekeeping or Space cases...but again, that was the deal this year...While I agree it would be BEST if generics covered the broad base of cases, but we'll survive if not...Besides, the areas will check all the random listing of cases like LNG (not in an area proposed thus far?). I DO believe depth of Aff lit is a valid concern at some small level, but it is just a reason to pick the right areas:  ie, Arms Control is super developed while Naval Coop might be more shallow (who knows-haven't read much  there). 

UQ--"coop now" concerns me much more than generics...The issue on the China topic did suck...by 2nd semester, a few minutes of Affs were often "pressure now"..citing ridiculous examples that did not compare to the action of the Aff.--REASON? Because debaters bastardize most everything!  The argument that "despite some coop now, Russia and the U.S. are headed for a space race, and space milz is a unique area of coop" SHOULD answers these concerns (ie, SQ coop is miniscule and doesn't really affect the overall level of coop)...but wiley debaters will just go for one-shot coop examples.... Negatives would/should argue that the plan's coop would be qualitative bigger than the small uq examples...i.e...debate it out
 Elections...these arguments would be true on any viable proposed topic...following this line of reasoning, AG would be jacked by the Farm Bill passing and/or candidates' specific takes on subsidies, Health Care  has been discussed, etc.  There is ALWAYS a potential for the UQ, etc. to change with an election!  I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Russia would be worse off than Ag or Health Care

  I agree that there should be a more discussion on list options and mechanisms
Against "security coop":  textually, having in the plan text is a proven liability that teams will ignore second semester to get out of dumb pics;  it is not a budgetary category as far as I know, but a term of art that can come from the DOS, DOE, NASA, the FBI, etc....and evidence will contextually use this term of art...the "security" part is both somewhat meaningless in this sense and has baggage.  If "bilateral coop" is used, not only does it satisfy calls for aff. flexibility, but can be limited by the directive action taken within the areas

M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:     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. Start sharing._______________________________________________
 eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com


Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University         

Be a better friend, newshound, and  know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

  eDebate mailing list
 eDebate at www.ndtceda.com



Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/a5827fd6/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list