[eDebate] next year's resolution

Eric Morris ermocito
Fri May 15 23:22:55 CDT 2009


My answers to Hester's questions, which were quite well framed....love to
hear what the other 34 think....

1. Obligation is too strong of a word. I would say there is a presumption
that it appears on the ballot with minor to no tweaks. That presumption
could be overcome with good arguments - the topic paper was clear in
suggesting the wording was somewhat tentative, and that time pressures were
an issue.

2. Presumption to allow disarm cases, in part to encourage critical teams to
defend a topical plan. Encouragement doesn't mean 100% compliance, but I
like making compliance tempting. This presumption is for making unilateral
disarm topical; negotiations leading to possible disarm (or possible
nothing) are a different issue. This presumption could also be invoked for
people wanting to have fewer, better nukes (RRW good), and I think that
should be a live question. I hope at least one topic should include that
option if we can find a way to avoid all-out bidirectionality (e.g. a topic
that focused on substantial numerical reductions).

3. I can't believe you would raise such an offensive point in a public
forum. You are a COM professional, for goodness sakes!

4. I don't know enough about all the likely ways our topic would influence
the broader public enough to feel it should have a significant impact on
topic wording. At most, the public influence argument is a reason to have
the topic hit nuclear posture head-on instead of tangentally. I found the
topic paper refreshing in that regard.

Big picture is this. I think the topic process will have deeper analysis on
wording than the controversy paper, since you have more people working on it
and more time to think about it. I generally feel that the topic committee
listens well and acts on the basis of reasons. I'm not inclined to
straitjacket them out of distrust. Plus, I'll be there for the discussion...

Ermo
MoState



On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:12 PM, michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) Does the topic comittee have an obligation to include the only
> resolution in the topic paper on the ballot? If not, why not?
>
> 2) Given that the topic paper specifically referenced "Disarmament" as AFF
> ground, should ALL  ballot choices AT LEAST allow AFF ground to include
> nuclear disarmament? If not, why not?
>
> 4) Given that the topic authors specifically noted that debating this topic
> has the benefit of providing actual policymakers with 'expertise' from a
> year of college debaters debating the issue, and assuming this carries with
> it some obligation on our part to try and craft a resolution that would
> provide the best kind of debates in terms of useful information for
> policymakers, what does that mean for the resolution itself? What kind of
> resolution would lend itself to the resolution best facilitating Public
> merits?
>
>
> if your school ranked Nuclear Weapons Policy first, please speak up. it
> doesn't mean your opinion counts more, but it is insightful to know WHY
> members wanted to debate this topic.
>
>
> hester
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090515/d7392eae/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list