Sat Jul 11 16:55:33 CDT 2009
All of those cases would be extra-topical since the first sentence of the
resolution says "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially change its nuclear posture..." A fishing treaty would not
substantially change the US's nuclear posture and would thus be outside of
the scope of the resolution (extra-topical). It's the same as any other
resolution - all of them say "The USFG should do X" and we consider to be
extra-topical any plan plank which does not do X.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Physics, Class of 2011
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:24 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