Fri Jul 10 20:08:51 CDT 2009
Wouldn't the CP to negotiate any of these deals without the nukes part, plus
disads linked to that part, make such affirmatives unstrategic? In most
cases, probably - and, if there's evidence saying that other issues need to
be bundled with US nukes, perhaps those debates SHOULD be had. If the cards
are good, you'd probably have to deal with it as a CP on the other two
p.s. Curious about which part of your anecdote would represent a threat to
the reputation of a pretty good debater...
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:24 PM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> I and some pretty good debaters (who will go unnamed to protect their
> reputations) were sitting around reading the new topics choices. When
> we saw the "bilateral agreement with Russia" section in Topic 3, they
> started laughing so much the beer came out of their nose(s). The First
> three cases we came up with: Negoiate the Artic Resources treaty..and,
> btw, cut some U.S. nukes. Negotiate a new Fishing Treaty and, btw, get
> rid of some U.S. nukes; obtain an agreement with Russia to reduce
> IRAN's nuclear weapons (or North Korea.), and btw, get rid of a few
> old U.S. nukes.
> Well, if you vote for Russia/Topic three, you reap what you sow.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman