[eDebate] Gonzo/Russia

[David Cram Helwich]

I disagree with one of JT's point--

Malgor, Dylan's and others' point is that a lack of unifying ground in the
topic ensures that teams go uber-generic in crafting their fallback negative
strategies. The mideast topic did not offer core, topic-specific negative
ground. Realizing this, the Gophers' first two negative assignments were a
Geographic Aesthetics K and Consult EU. Obviously, we have a really young
squad that is still finding its research legs, but we still went for those
arguments in a TON of debates, even some late in the season against new
and/or corner affs.

On the flip side, on the energy topic, Mac's first three neg files were an
oil prices DA, a coal prices DA, and a natural gas prices DA. I think that
most people would agree that it was easier to be negative on the energy
topic.

$.02

dch
head gopher

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:


> The issue of generics doesn't go far...That was the case this year! There

> were no good generics that applied to ALL the topic countries...much less

> the smaller cases.  We all survived...there will always be small affs your

> generics don't solve--on every topic. I think a way to counteract the

> concerns of Keenan Et al is to have your generic strategies particular to

> the area...i.e., your generics covering Arms Control cases might not apply

> to Peacekeeping or Space cases...but again, that was the deal this

> year...While I agree it would be BEST if generics covered the broad base of

> cases, but we'll survive if not...Besides, the areas will check all the

> random listing of cases like LNG (not in an area proposed thus far?). I DO

> believe depth of Aff lit is a valid concern at some small level, but it is

> just a reason to pick the right areas:  ie, Arms Control is super developed

> while Naval Coop might be more shallow (who knows-haven't read much there).

>

> UQ--"coop now" concerns me much more than generics...The issue on the China

> topic did suck...by 2nd semester, a few minutes of Affs were often "pressure

> now"..citing ridiculous examples that did not compare to the action of the

> Aff.--REASON? Because debaters bastardize most everything!  The argument

> that "despite some coop now, Russia and the U.S. are headed for a space

> race, and space milz is a unique area of coop" SHOULD answers these concerns

> (ie, SQ coop is miniscule and doesn't really affect the overall level of

> coop)...but wiley debaters will just go for one-shot coop examples....

> Negatives would/should argue that the plan's coop would be qualitative

> bigger than the small uq examples...i.e...debate it out

> Elections...these arguments would be true on any viable proposed

> topic...following this line of reasoning, AG would be jacked by the Farm

> Bill passing and/or candidates' specific takes on subsidies, Health Care has

> been discussed, etc.  There is ALWAYS a potential for the UQ, etc. to change

> with an election!  I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Russia

> would be worse off than Ag or Health Care

>

> I agree that there should be a more discussion on list options and

> mechanisms

>

> Against "security coop":  textually, having in the plan text is a proven

> liability that teams will ignore second semester to get out of dumb pics;

> it is not a budgetary category as far as I know, but a term of art that can

> come from the DOS, DOE, NASA, the FBI, etc....and evidence will contextually

> use this term of art...the "security" part is both somewhat meaningless in

> this sense and has baggage.  If "bilateral coop" is used, not only does it

> satisfy calls for aff. flexibility, but can be limited by the directive

> action taken within the areas

>

>

> *M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com>* wrote:

>

> None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be

> viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small

> corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of

> the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with

> consult).

>

> The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can

> win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not

> so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the

> resolution-'two offers' comes to mind.  Regardless, let's assume it is

> competitive.  This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument

> that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't

> have great solvency literature for.  This is normally checked back by core

> topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism.  The

> multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but

> the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why

> security cooperation is bad.

>

> And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as

> potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia?

> We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation

> 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the

> election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united

> states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems

> for the aff or neg.  Why is no one bothered by this?

>

> is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered?  it

> seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that

> will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v

> generic mechanism.  if a list is the best way to ensure equitable

> solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen

> from anyone), it should be considered.

>

> I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that 'large, evidence based

> areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific pics and advantage

> cps that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to

> entirely hamstring the aff' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one

> at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always

> have crap to say so don't worry about it."

>

> back to grand theft auto 4...

>

> "Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's

> been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was

>

> because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like

> unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with

> the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and

>

> specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic

> defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature

> that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic

> authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says

> that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral

> coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and

> multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed

> topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide

> array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a

> diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. "

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

> Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start

> sharing.<http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

>

>

> JT

>

> Asst. Debate Coach

> Emporia State University

>

> ------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it

> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20080508/a4710a1a/attachment.htm