[eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me

Josh jbhdb8
Mon Jul 6 14:49:08 CDT 2009


I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having a TON of
problems with this topic the more I do research on the area.
**
*Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following
ways:
-- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty
-- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and
restricting the use of its nuclear weapons
--A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal
--Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that
at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons
--A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear
weapons.*
**
My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound by a
common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough
to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems.  I have always
believed that lists are good when they are unified and debate out poorly
when they are an attempt to shoe horn "cases" into a list.  This is the
latter IMHO.  I supect you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these
things and thats probably so although I suspect operational readiness might
have some interesting holes to expose in that one.
**
Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind of
confusing and certainly not using a term of art
**
*Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and
restricting the use of its nuclear weapons *

Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy.  Declatory
policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is not a reduction in
the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get that the topic says reducing
the use of its weapons...but what the hell does that mean.  Either all
declarations are a use of nuclear weapons meaning all changes of declatory
policy reduce and restrict that use....OR it means actual reductions and
restrictions of deployments.  In other words, its a confusing and
unnecessary distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to
increase uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy
is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction).

Third, this is the real big problem:

*Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at
least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons *

Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle as
agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet and hard to
beat I suspect.

I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add-ons that
were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes the center of the
earth to warm accounting for global warming was one such gem)

Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic discussion
going on......

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/c26aa64b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list