[eDebate] Fwd: Nuclear Wording

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Mon May 18 12:53:28 CDT 2009


this is kind of gratuitous but I'm just adding my voice in support of what hester said in this email:
My initial opinion is we're better off having a topic that allows AFFs to  address both force structure AND force posture

his resolution below sounds pretty good to me as well.

michael antonucci's additional "its" sounds like a good limiter to me as well.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu


From: michael hester 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:53 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Nuclear Wording


oops, my post should probably be part of the community-wide discussion. 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Nuclear Wording
To: Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com>


Can this concern over how broadly "use" might be interpreted be addressed by something like this...

The United States government should substantially limit the use of its nuclear weapons as battlefield weapons and/or strategic deterrent.  


This way, deep cuts in stockpiles and changes in posture which significantly reduce when/where/against whom nuclear weapons could be used would each be topical. 

This discussion is an important one. My initial opinion is we're better off having a topic that allows AFFs to  address both force structure AND force posture, even it means risking making the topic so broad that it allows AFFs to do one or the other. i'd rather that occur than have the topic limit AFFs to just posture or just structure, and create gaps which hobble solvency. e.g., a topic that excludes changes in posture would mean an AFF that did deep cuts would lose to the the "less missiles = increased hair trigger" solvency args that the advocates of deep cuts clearly don't assume b/c their advocacy includes changes in posture too. if the topic is going to include disarm as topical ground, it HAS to include changes in structure, or the Disarm AFF would lose to the "you prohibit usfg use of weapons but leave thousands of missiles lying aroundm unable to be touched by military officers." 


On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com> wrote:

  Malgor:

  "That the United States federal government should significantly limit the use of its nuclear weapons" 

  "Nuclear use" has a pretty specific meaning in the literature, as does "nuclear use policy."  It means 'sploding stuff with big boom boom boom.

  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/06_1.cfm
  http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0203/doc02.htm
  etc.

  One might interpret the sample resolution more broadly, as you suggest, to include deterrence as a potential "use," and thereby let in cuts.

  I dislike such interpretations because they're at odds with the available literature.  "Nuclear use" clearly describes force posture, not force structure.  It means "when we make the boom" not "how many boomsticks we have at our disposal."

  If you have to contort the available lit to let in the core, it's much more difficult to make credible T arguments against the periphery.  The periphery, in this case, would include numerous safeguards against nuclear terrorism and, perhaps even more problematically, critical cases that merely claimed to reconstitute our relationship to nuclear weapons.  The critical cases could just change the "use" of nuclear weapons in our dreams, hopes and symbolic order.  

  I'm all for these sorts of critical advantages, but an aff should have to attach them to a more concrete action for the purposes of negative ground.

  -- 
  Michael Antonucci
  Debate Coach
  Georgetown University
  Mobile: 617-838-3345
  Office: 202-687-4079


  _______________________________________________
  eDebate mailing list
  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
  http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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/20090518/fbfbb1dc/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list