[eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me

Joshua Gonzalez gonza310
Mon Jul 6 16:11:18 CDT 2009


Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of #3, just making an un- 
clever aside. That having been said, I'm not arguing against topic #3  
either...I haven't done enough research yet to have an opinion that I  
would be comfortable defending.

best,
other Josh (Wake)


On Jul 6, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Josh wrote:

> An addendum, my whine about the CTBT was not the point of the  
> post....yes, I realize it is certainly topical under topic one for  
> sure.
>
> Thanks to Joshua G for making me clarify.
> Josh
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/6d8d14d3/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list