[eDebate] New Proposed version of the nuclear weapons topic.
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Mon May 18 12:27:52 CDT 2009
No slight intended toward the topic paper authors. I found the Dephi
Paper too went I re-read their paper just a while ago. But the one
thing missing from the topic paper is a list of proposed topics. I
think the alternative I propose is consistent with the literature. It
does not require a total disarm, just a substantial move by the USFG
in that direction (i.e. uniqueness/inherency). Only debaters would
think of a "one shot-total disarm immediately" proposal. my proposal
allows for debates that are consistent with what policy experts are
pursuing on this issue.
It is also pretty straightforward. Heaven forbid we have a topic
without multiple clauses, 80 clarification terms, lists, "and/or" and
Quoting Judson Eldredge <eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com>:
> The Yeats topic paper did cite this as the excellent must read that
> it is, which is how I found it :)
>> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:57:33 -0500
>> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Subject: [eDebate] New Proposed version of the nuclear weapons topic.
>> First, credit, where credit is due, Jud Eldredge turned my to the
>> source from t he Carnegie Endowment. This source provides the
>> blueprint for the version of the debate topic I propose. And, if you
>> take the time to read it, you will see why this is a pretty good
>> idea...at least a good starting point. I do not see how member sof the
>> Topic Committee can draft an adequate nuclear weapons topic without
>> first reading this tome:
>> Regradless of the Topic COmmittee's decsion, this article will become
>> the textbook for my introduction to debate class this year. I think
>> this, and the orginal topic paper, can serve as a touchstone for the
>> entire debate community.
>> Based on my reading of the Delphi Paper, here is my suggested topic wording.
>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substanitally
>> increase its efforts to abolish all nuclear weapons.
>> I think this provides affirmatives with enough flexibility and
>> provides the negative with stable ground.
>> Here are some relevant excerpts of the Carnegie Foundation's Debate
>> over the abolition of nuclear weapons:
>> "In the past few years, horizontal and vertical proliferation have collided.
>> That is, the need for significant strengthening of the
>> nonproliferation regime
>> in the wake of nuclear developments in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan
>> is now absolutely clear. So too, however, is growing unwillingness
>> among non?nuclear-weapon states to even consider additional measures
>> in what they see as the absence of serious progress by the nuclear-armed
>> states toward disarmament....
>> ...Few, if any, top-tier issues attract as much simplistic analysis, as many
>> verbal red herrings, and as little serious work by governments as does
>> the feasibility of nuclear disarmament. As was pointed out in Abolishing
>> Nuclear Weapons, none of the nuclear-weapon states ?has an employee,
>> let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what
>> would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons.?
>> Our endeavor, launched with Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, advanced in
>> this volume, and continuing into the future, is to jump-start a broad and
>> deep international debate, based on serious analysis, of what it would take
>> to achieve the immensely important and equally difficult goal of nuclear
>> disarmament. Like this volume, that debate will have to include active
>> participation by all states ? non-nuclear as well as nuclear armed."
>> "What appears to have motivated much of this interest is the belief
>> that it will be impossible to curtail nuclear-weapons proliferation without
>> serious progress towards nuclear disarmament. In the absence of sufficient
>> action on disarmament by the nuclear-weapons states, leaders of
>> many non-nuclear-weapons states are increasingly resistant to efforts to
>> strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) system....
>> They also insist that they will not accept
>> any new discriminatory constraints on their access to nuclear technology.
>> Resistance to stronger non-proliferation measures is especially worrying
>> given the expectation of a significant global expansion in nuclear-energy
>> production. Ultimately, if it is to be sustainable and acceptable to
>> the majority
>> of states, any new nuclear order must be equitable and not perpetuate
>> the disparity between the states that possess nuclear weapons and those
>> that do not."
>> "The need for non-nuclear-weapons states to join a debate over the
>> details of nuclear disarmament is great. The global diffusion of the
>> and know-how to produce fissile materials threatens to overwhelm
>> the existing regime to prevent the ?diversion of nuclear energy
>> from peaceful
>> uses to nuclear weapons?.6 Fear of nuclear proliferation is motivating
>> some nuclear-weapons states to take nuclear disarmament more seriously,
>> 7 but neither non-proliferation nor the abolition of nuclear weapons
>> can be achieved without the active cooperation of non-nuclear-weapons
>> states. Nuclear abolition would require much more than the dismantling
>> of all nuclear weapons in the nine states that now possess them. To make
>> abolition feasible and to enable the detection of rearmament,....."
>> Just a thought.
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
More information about the Mailman