[eDebate] next year's resolution

David Cram Helwich cramhelwich
Fri May 15 18:06:48 CDT 2009

We voted for the nuclear weapons topic because the topic is important and
because the literature bases are: a) deep; b) relatively well-defined; and
c) responsive to themselves. Our hope is that this will produce good

The worst possible thing that we can do with the topic is to gerrymander the
resolution so that it shifts us away the policy options being debated in
various deliberative communities (both 'weak' and 'strong') in some effort
to limit KU's ability to come up with a new aff for Monday at the NDT.

When the Gophers voted for this topic area, we assumed that the following
policy areas would be fair game:
* Arms control initiatives (FMCT, CTBT, re-START, etc)
* Development of new weapons systems and capabilities
* Force posture (how ready, use under which conditions, where deployed,
targeted at?)
* Force structure (which weapons, how many, which delivery systems)
* Nuclear testing posture and preparedness

When reading this report, the following sentence jumped out at me:
"The United States should drastically reduce the role that nuclear weapons
play in its security policies"

In response to a couple of Hester's prompts:

1)I think that the topic committee is under no obligation to include the
actual topic wording on the ballot, especially if it turns out (as some
suggest) that the most reasonable (or at least limiting) interpretation of
that resolution excludes a lot of the aff areas listed in the paper. The
topic committee's obligation, IMO, is to produce a series of resolutions
that allow the aff to access the policy/harm areas outlined in the paper
while still providing some predictability to the neg.

2) Disarm should be T:
a) polarization can produce lots of good debates--see 'Matheson, Calum' and
'Texas, North'
b) it is the end-state preferred by many aff solvency advocates
c) there is a robust debate between many many camps about the relative
advantages of zero vs. virtual vs. few/minimal (100?) vs. small but robust
(500-1000?) vs. squo (2000+) vs. waltz.
d) provides good venue for K-land to interact with DA-land

4) Start from the lit and work outwards--best thing we can do is to apply
our collective creativity in testing and expanding on the range of options
being explored by policymakers (from the DoD to the Stimson Center for CND).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090515/2d93561f/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list