[eDebate] Nuclear Wording
Mon May 18 12:29:50 CDT 2009
The United States Federal Government should substantially limit the role of
its nuclear weapons in its national security policy.
It's only a slight tweak of the one Dcram posted, adding the term "national
security policy" instead of "its security policies" and taking out the word
"play" from the turn of phrase "role that nuclear weapons play." It also
changes from "drastically reduce" to "substantially limit."
For some reason, "limit" seems a bit more comfortable than "reduce." I
don't have the greatest argument for why yet.
However, "limit the ROLE of its nuclear weapons" seems to allow an array of
changes to structure, stockpiles, etc. The one thing I was slightly worried
about were small affs that just change some internal CIA memo, and I think
"national security policy" has the propensity to check a little of that (as
opposed to the cumbersome combination of "establish a foreign policy"
wording that the old high school topic had).
It allows for direct avenues to disarm and is actually quite a big topic.
In my opinion, the committee should keep this topic rather large. If it's
as broad but unidirectional as the wording above, no matter the wide range
of ideas an affirmative can come up with (and there's a ton in the lit
base), the negative always gets "nukes good" at some level.
University of Wyoming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman