[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Topic Three is problematic to me

Joel Rollins jd.rollins
Mon Jul 6 15:22:11 CDT 2009


Oddly, I agree with Josh. Topic 3 seems like a mess and the  
uniqueness debate is way too aff for my taste.


On Jul 6, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Josh wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l




More information about the Mailman mailing list