College Policy Debate Forums
November 21, 2017, 06:15:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: 2011-2012 topic paper- Critical Infrastructure  (Read 20525 times)
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« on: April 25, 2011, 10:04:34 AM »

Attached you will find the infrastructure topic paper. Both the PDF and .docx versions are available.

This paper focuses on the need for the United States to increase the protection and resiliency of its critical infrastructure and key resources.

Taylor

* CIKR Topic Paper.docx (374.71 KB - downloaded 4535 times.)
* CIKR Topic Paper.pdf (920.52 KB - downloaded 6009 times.)
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2011, 06:32:29 PM »

An email was sent to me today raising a question and comment about the CIKR paper, so I thought I'd post the response here:


Question 1: “Is h1-b visas a topical aff under this topic?  We ran an infrastructure advantage almost the entire year. The topic wording says: Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the protection and resiliency of its Critical Infrastructures and Key Resources. Could I just add the phrase, "by expanding the h1-b visa quota to include STEM workers specializing in infrastructure..."

Probably not, as it would seem rather effects topical according to this government and agency specific definition of “protection”:
According to the DHS’ 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan, “protection” is defined as:

Protection includes actions to mitigate the overall risk to CIKR assets, systems, networks,
functions, or their inter-connecting links. In the context of the NIPP, this includes actions to
deter the threat, mitigate vulnerabilities, or minimize the consequences associated with a terrorist
attack or other incident (see figure S-1). Protection can include a wide range of activities,
such as improving security protocols, hardening facilities, building resiliency and
redundancy, incorporating hazard resistance into facility design, initiating active or
passive countermeasures, install-ing security systems, leveraging “self-healing”
technologies, promoting workforce surety programs, implementing cybersecurity
measures, training and exercises, business continuity planning, and restoration and
recovery actions, among various others.35

Also, I think writing in intent to be topical isn’t the same as being topical. To me, the definition would make implementing protocols, systems, technologies, planning and countermeasures would be topical. Your interpretation would make assassinating Russian or Chinese hackers topical as those actions would also increase “protection” in a generic sense, but I don’t think that’s what the DHS and other executive agencies mean when they use this language across a range of specific documents. At first, I was weary of using the verb “protection,” but it does have context and agency specific meaning that *should* beat the broader definitions that would make H1-Bs topical.

Question (or statement) two: “ I think the sections that identify "when the last time we debated this" are inaccurate.  I think we debated this multiple rounds on the affirmative and the negative this last year.”

True – that particular section was written last year by me and I simply forgot to update it. However, this really is a marginal issue at best. The conclusion of that paragraph, “However, we have never debated an entire topic on these issues to any depth in recent years. It seems silly to eliminate this topic from considerable simply because we have had very minimal discussion of this topic on the margins of other topics. Under that logic, we would not be able to debate any topic in the future” certainly remains true. I dug around Open Caselist wiki a bit and I determined that about 4 schools debated infrastructure on the aff and neg last year. One team ran 6 cards as ONE advantage. Another team ran 10 cards about cyberwarfare. Another school ran 2 cards as a political scenario and another ran a preemptive EMP strike CP with 1-2 cards. That’s about 20 unique cards (unique in that multiple teams from these school ran similar arguments, but they weren’t different) on CI read last year. That seems like a rather low amount to conclude that my conclusion is either: (A) inaccurate or (B) multiple rounds were about CI. A small part of several rounds were about CI. And almost all of these debates were about CI’s broadly and only one or two advantages had a few cards about a specific sector.

In comparison, a few teams ran Tajikistan scenarios last year. Should the Failed States paper have to make a lengthy argument about that? Also, my team frequently ran a CEDAW CP. Should the Treaties paper have to account for this? I hope not. We debate some of these issues related to each topic proposal every year. That’s very different than having in depth and developed debates on these issues. If that is our threshold for having "substantial debate" on a topic, we are being rather ridiculous.

I encourage questions and comments. There were a number of great authors on this paper, so I don’t want to act like the spokesperson for this topic paper and they have many great things to say too. I only post this because the email was directed to me specifically.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
Zeke
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2011, 10:06:31 AM »

I find this to be one of the most interesting topics this year, and the paper is extremely well done. However, I think you underestimate the problem of tiny affirmatives with virtually no case ground. For example, consider the Unix timestamp problem of the year 2038. Basically, this is the Y2K bug, except it's real. Any computer that uses a 32-bit Unix timestamp for tracking time will have huge problems that could lead to the collapse of financial sectors and power grids. The impacts of this aren't just in 2038; many institutions track time 20-25 years in advance and could begin to see problems then.

All of your standard policy impacts could be claimed off of this problem, but there is no significant negative ground against it. It would cost virtually nothing and there's no links to politics. I think this shows the flaw in the mechanism of the proposed resolution. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I believe the mechanism would allow for tiny affs like this where the only negative strategy is a generic kritik, because even process CPs would have no real net benefit.

Quick edit: I am in no way saying that these impacts are true, but there is literature out there for it. Currently I've forgotten my password for my student account, so I can't really pull up the cards. Even with mitigation of impacts, the plan is still better than the status quo, as it would cost less money to fix now than after the problem begins to occur.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 10:10:51 AM by Zeke » Logged
SCOTUS
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2011, 10:14:36 AM »

I really like this topic as much, if not more, than any other except one thing:

ITS HUGE.

The size of the proposal is 150+ pages, for example.

How do you plan to non-arbitrarily shrink the topic so that we have a finite number of case negs?
Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2011, 10:24:08 AM »

I find this to be one of the most interesting topics this year, and the paper is extremely well done. However, I think you underestimate the problem of tiny affirmatives with virtually no case ground. For example, consider the Unix timestamp problem of the year 2038. Basically, this is the Y2K bug, except it's real. Any computer that uses a 32-bit Unix timestamp for tracking time will have huge problems that could lead to the collapse of financial sectors and power grids. The impacts of this aren't just in 2038; many institutions track time 20-25 years in advance and could begin to see problems then.

Substantial checks. Just because you can claim big advantages doesn't mean the solvency mechanism is a substantial one.

The negative ground will also check this back. Remember that affs have to deal with split Congress disads. The House hates increasing funding and would backlash against expanding executive agency roles. That guarantees politics and spending links.

Further, the agency overstretch disads are pretty good. Let's take the example you illustrate. To my knowledge, that would fall under IT or Communication. Lead agencies for those sectors are DHS. Alternative agencies could be FCC. Normal means implies affs would go through the DHS, which means you can use the FCC with a FCC credibility good (net neutrality good impacts).

Your arguments about tiny affs assume a world where there is only case debate. That isn't how debates are set up now. Debates are focused on counterplan/plan debates, which means that implementation is important especially with new roles concerning infrastructure. There is good literature for both sides on who should be doing this.

I really like this topic as much, if not more, than any other except one thing:

ITS HUGE.

The size of the proposal is 150+ pages, for example.

How do you plan to non-arbitrarily shrink the topic so that we have a finite number of case negs?


First, I think this is how the topic is distinct from treaties. Where treaties has a limited number of affs with no common generic negative ground. There is common generic negative ground on the infrastructure topic. That means even if there are more affs, there's more overlap in the arguments you can make. The only thing that would matter then is new advantages, but new, big advantages seem to be inevitable on any topic.

Second, just because the paper is 150 pages doesn't mean the topic is large. It is better to have a large topic paper for two reasons. First, it eases the burden on the wording committee so they don't have to do research for new areas like they will have for Failed States or Treaties. Second, we examined and analyzed every sector identified by the government.

Third, they arbitrarily selected the subsidies for the agriculture topic, the countries for the Middle East topic, the visas for the immigration topic, and the missions (Oelrich 05, anyone) for the nukes topic. Treaties will also be arbitrarily selected as will Failed States. To assist in this arbitrary selection, every sector is covered.

Fourth, there are 19 sectors examined. They aren't distinct sectors. IT and Comm go together, energy and nuclear reactors go together, dams and water, chemical and manufacturing, etc. That means there are predictable groupings between the sectors, which ties negative ground together and prevents shady affirmatives.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 10:29:53 AM by Jeff Kurr » Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2011, 10:28:45 AM »

A quick note on this paper.

We realized as we were compiling our efforts that this paper was going to be massive in size. We ultimately decided not to slim it down for two reasons:

1. In the event that the community choses to debate CIKR, it will be important to know what sectors would be best to include in the resolution (assuming we don't include all of them). The CIKR Sectors section of this topic can be considered a jump-start on the wording paper process.

2. Much of the mass of this paper comes from the sheer number of cards that were included. Readers should note that if you don't read the individual sector sub-sections, the paper size drops down to 40-50 pages. This is due, in large part, to the depth of card analysis provided in each section which might not be traditional for topic papers, but we ultimately agreed would be informative for the community.

I don't think that the paper size indicates a large topic, but merely that there are a number of ways the resolution could be worded and approached. For those not looking forward to reading 100+ pages on this issue, I strongly encourage attention to be focused on the introduction and topicality sections.

Taylor
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2011, 10:39:00 AM »

i think the expansive nature of the topic is a big concern.  the way you can limit with specific areas (transport etc) is obvious, but are there any exclusive definitions of protection or resiliency?

protection seems broad, as it includes anything that deters threats to the infrastructure.

the resiliency card provided is also pretty broad-

organizational resiliency is based on 21 attributes particularly associated with resilience
and assigned them to five related categories. These categories are emergency planning,
organizational flexibility, leadership, workforce commitment, and networked
organizations.1 Likewise, government and academic organizations have discussed how
resiliency can be achieved in different ways. Among these are an organization’s
robustness (based on protection, for example better security or the hardening of
facilities); the redundancy of primary systems (backups and overlap offering alternatives if
one system is damaged or destroyed); and the degree to which flexibility can be built into
the organization’s culture (to include continuous communications to assure awareness
during a disruption, distributed decision-making power so multiple employees can take
decisive action when needed, and being conditioned for disruptions to improve response
when necessary).40

this card seems to indicate that forcing a chance in organizational communication protocols and training programs are all topical.  Given that half of the topic is about responding once there has been a terrorist attack/natural disaster, these affs aren't tiny in the sense that they do directly address that impact area of the topic, which seems to be at the core of the issue.   are there more limiting definitions, or suggestions for how the topic can be limited.  It seems that protection and resiliency are the two most used terms, but they are used quite broadly.

Logged
Zeke
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2011, 10:42:06 AM »

I think the substantial checks is a topicality debate to be had, but what definition of substantial is the negative going to be using to prove that it isn't substantial?

Alright, so you might have a generic link to a politics disad. I think the affirmative can win the no link on the split Congress disads. However, that might prove the abuse on topicality, so I can see what you're saying there.

Agencies are the primary point of contention that I don't agree with. The literature is out there that proves that multiple agencies working at once would be normal means to solve for many CIKR issues. For example, you say that normal means would be the DHS. However, I've talked to a few specialists in this area (once again, I wish I could grab the evidence for this, but I can't remember my password for the life of me), and they have complained a lot about the functioning of multiple agencies having to fix problems like this. As you said, the DHS and FCC would be involved, but so would DISA, the Air Force, etc. While some kind of bureaucracy DA plus the solely FCC CP with its internal net benefits would be a decent strategy, then the aff runs the overstretch DA against the CP and is on the right side of the no solvency and additional harms debate.

I'm not assuming there is only case debate, I'm just saying that I prefer DAs and CPs with aff specific links and I believe a more specific mechanism/narrowing the resolution even further would improve the topic. Maybe that can be hashed out more with the wording papers, but I just wanted to point out the issue now.

There are great debates to be had with this topic, and it's by far my favorite of any of the controversy papers. I just wanted to point out a few issues I can see the proposed resolution having with such a broad topic area. Even cutting down the resolution to a few specific critical infrastructures such as energy, water, and communications leaves a large number of affs and a huge research burden for the negative. I'm just worried about hitting lots of tiny affs and having very generic neg debates.
Logged
Whit
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 79


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2011, 10:54:31 AM »

Substantial has never checked anything. To quote Scott Phillips from last year:
If there were ever a word the debate community were wedded to, its substantially. It won't go away. I think last year it was in the resolution 26 times. And a more loveless marriage there has never been. We all know the alleged "why" of substantially. We also all know that it fails to limit the topic in any meaningful way. The question, I guess, is "does the annoyance of including the word every year outweigh the 1 debate/50 years where it is useful to limit out Elian?". I think the answer is clearly yes. The problem is no one in the real world uses substantially in a precise or meaningful way.
...

Any consideration of an "alternative" must start from the recognition that
-this word has no precise meaning
-its inclusion is based on tradition, not utility
-the debates about it are universally bad for debate


Agency CP and Politics checks is also not an answer. Even speaking as a fan of counterplan/politics debates, you can drill a hole in my head if that's what every 2nr is going to be. First, no affs will talk about actual infrastructure issues. They will read agency specific advantages that really have little to do with infrastructure. The only other conceivable vision is one where teams say USFG and ardently refuse to defend or specify an agency (who thinks affs have to defend normal means anymore?). Then we can look forward to A-Spec, Agent CP theory, and "Perm - Do the CP" 2ARs. Sign me up!
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2011, 10:57:18 AM »

I think the substantial checks is a topicality debate to be had, but what definition of substantial is the negative going to be using to prove that it isn't substantial?

Alright, so you might have a generic link to a politics disad. I think the affirmative can win the no link on the split Congress disads. However, that might prove the abuse on topicality, so I can see what you're saying there.

Agencies are the primary point of contention that I don't agree with. The literature is out there that proves that multiple agencies working at once would be normal means to solve for many CIKR issues. For example, you say that normal means would be the DHS. However, I've talked to a few specialists in this area (once again, I wish I could grab the evidence for this, but I can't remember my password for the life of me), and they have complained a lot about the functioning of multiple agencies having to fix problems like this. As you said, the DHS and FCC would be involved, but so would DISA, the Air Force, etc. While some kind of bureaucracy DA plus the solely FCC CP with its internal net benefits would be a decent strategy, then the aff runs the overstretch DA against the CP and is on the right side of the no solvency and additional harms debate.

I'm not assuming there is only case debate, I'm just saying that I prefer DAs and CPs with aff specific links and I believe a more specific mechanism/narrowing the resolution even further would improve the topic. Maybe that can be hashed out more with the wording papers, but I just wanted to point out the issue now.

There are great debates to be had with this topic, and it's by far my favorite of any of the controversy papers. I just wanted to point out a few issues I can see the proposed resolution having with such a broad topic area. Even cutting down the resolution to a few specific critical infrastructures such as energy, water, and communications leaves a large number of affs and a huge research burden for the negative. I'm just worried about hitting lots of tiny affs and having very generic neg debates.

i sure hope we haven't reached an era where any aff that can prove they don't link to politics is immediately found nontopical! 
Logged
Zeke
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2011, 11:02:25 AM »

i sure hope we haven't reached an era where any aff that can prove they don't link to politics is immediately found nontopical! 
Well, that's what substantially can do to debates, as Whit said.
Logged
BrianDeLong
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2011, 11:10:55 AM »

Substantial has never checked anything. To quote Scott Phillips from last year:
If there were ever a word the debate community were wedded to, its substantially. It won't go away. I think last year it was in the resolution 26 times. And a more loveless marriage there has never been. We all know the alleged "why" of substantially. We also all know that it fails to limit the topic in any meaningful way. The question, I guess, is "does the annoyance of including the word every year outweigh the 1 debate/50 years where it is useful to limit out Elian?". I think the answer is clearly yes. The problem is no one in the real world uses substantially in a precise or meaningful way.
...

Any consideration of an "alternative" must start from the recognition that
-this word has no precise meaning
-its inclusion is based on tradition, not utility
-the debates about it are universally bad for debate


Agency CP and Politics checks is also not an answer. Even speaking as a fan of counterplan/politics debates, you can drill a hole in my head if that's what every 2nr is going to be. First, no affs will talk about actual infrastructure issues. They will read agency specific advantages that really have little to do with infrastructure. The only other conceivable vision is one where teams say USFG and ardently refuse to defend or specify an agency (who thinks affs have to defend normal means anymore?). Then we can look forward to A-Spec, Agent CP theory, and "Perm - Do the CP" 2ARs. Sign me up!

One of the benefits of this topic is that it will encourage and necessitate agency specific research beyond what has happened with past resolutions. Each section of the critical infrastructure has an assigned Sector-Specific Agency (SSA). Politics DAs will not just be limited to congressional agency. Negatives will be largely guaranteed a normal means link to the SSAs even if the plan says "USFG." September GSU debates will start off with DAs on the internal dynamics of each organization. Affirmatives will have to warrant why their change is needed in a world where basic human capital is strained across the board in each one of these agencies (DHS, FDA, HHS etc.).

Uniqueness wise I think the CIKR topic is important. The president as well as congress seem hell bent on undermining the power of these agencies to do their job well by cutting resources and reducing regulatory action. Protection and resiliency programs are on the spending chopping block and are losing political favor for the extension of regulation power. This political climate means Affirmatives can claim a unique advantage while also linking to a fairly decent literature base on trading off with already overstretched agencies. Affirmatives then will have to prove that they are worth the risk of
1) Trading off with current efforts in an agency
2) trading off with zero sum $$$ programs on the chopping block.

Also I think there is a decent debate to be had on how new protection/resliency actions can undermine the pro-business anti-regulatory mood in Washington. Business confidence and cooperation with the government is also decent.

Literature and substantial:
Affirmatives will have to have a warrant why the USFG as well as the enforcement SSA agency is key. As most of the topic sections show, the protection/resiliency of each critical infrastructure is often within multiple jurisdictions. Generic negative ground in terms of States and localities will be important on this topic. Small and unpredictable affs may lack the evidence needed to substantiate a response to these CPs and/or other squo solves arguments.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 11:19:03 AM by BrianDeLong » Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2011, 11:15:24 AM »

I will address these issues more when I have time, but I wanted to offer initial thoughts to Malgor and Zeke.

Malgor -

This is certainly a valid concern that I believe can be solved through either the usage of different terms (probably not necessary) or a narrowing of the CIKR sectors. These are both options, but I think that the definitions available, when taken in conjunction with the literature base clarifying the threats that exist to each sector, will provide stable ground for the resolution.

While the 'protection' and 'resiliency' terms appear somewhat vague, I think it's worth noting that not all sections suffer from the same security threats and many are in need of only certain forms of protection. These threats are well-documented in the literature and illustrate that in order to win any sort of advantage ground, affirmatives would really have to address these core areas (terrorism, etc). Many of the sectors have actually specified which threats are priority concerns to the protection and resiliency of the relevant facilities (you can see this, for example, in the Communication Sector area of the paper).  While the definitions are used in a very broad sense, we've found that the 'core' literature uses them in a way that is very focused and nuanced (as Kelly explains in the topicality section). This is a problem similar to what the community faced on the nuclear topic. 'Missions' and 'roles' were terms that had very precise definitions in governmental literature, but teams commonly used less-qualified sources to expand these terms. This is largely a question of author qualification that topicality debates would likely iron out.

Assuming that the resolution includes these terms (which certainly is not the only way to write a CIKR topic), teams would need to determine the different threats posed to various CIKR sectors. Most of the harms areas pertaining to individual sectors have a heavy literature base articulating the need to do more than these small affs that you mention (restructuring, etc.). Affirmatives seeking to run these types of affs will find that most evidence stipulates the need to do these small initiatives in conjunction with other switches, thus expanding neg ground.


Zeke -

The substantial debate is one that we face every year when we include this type of terminology in the resolution. Substantial could be argued in the tradition sense (numeric, without material qualification), but for CIKR it could also pertain to how much of the resiliency/protection loophole is solved through plan. I'm not entirely sure how this topicality concern differs compared to other resolutions that have used the term, but will be happy to extrapolate if you can clarify for me.

As for the actor question, it's true that multiple agencies would have to act to enact the plan, but when we get down to the actual literature this isn't very different from previous resolutions. Affs from last year's immigration topic required enforcement and planning through hundreds of actors and sub-agencies, but in the context of policy debate I think what CIKR provides is the chance to argue which agency should have oversight of these sectors. This is where most of the CP ground concerning actors will stem from, as is mentioned in the generic neg section of the paper.

It's quite possible that narrowing the topic, as you mention, would benefit this topic. While I think that including the full list of CIKRs would still allow for a good resolution, it is a valid concern that the topic could explode depending on how the resolution is worded. As for the disad and CP ground, many of the sectors address these strategies and offer (surprisingly good) link examples to some unique disads.

Just some initial thoughts for both - I will extrapolate later this evening. Thank you much for the input.

Taylor
Logged
Zeke
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2011, 11:28:09 AM »

The substantial debate is one that we face every year when we include this type of terminology in the resolution. Substantial could be argued in the tradition sense (numeric, without material qualification), but for CIKR it could also pertain to how much of the resiliency/protection loophole is solved through plan. I'm not entirely sure how this topicality concern differs compared to other resolutions that have used the term, but will be happy to extrapolate if you can clarify for me.
Well, I guess where I see it differing is the amount of literature on small issues. Part of what makes this topic so timely and important is the fact that our CIKR system is really messed up. With so many problems to fix, I think there will be a lot of small affs that try to squirrel out of links.
As for the actor question, it's true that multiple agencies would have to act to enact the plan, but when we get down to the actual literature this isn't very different from previous resolutions. Affs from last year's immigration topic required enforcement and planning through hundreds of actors and sub-agencies, but in the context of policy debate I think what CIKR provides is the chance to argue which agency should have oversight of these sectors. This is where most of the CP ground concerning actors will stem from, as is mentioned in the generic neg section of the paper.
When you have more time later on, can you clarify exactly how the oversight CPs would function? Is there really enough normal means evidence out there to win that one specific agency will oversee others in whatever the plan action is, and that another should oversee instead? I have a feeling that more of the evidence will come out of what agency specifically should actually enact the plan, rather than oversee it. The problem there being that the perm on the agent CP will probably be net beneficial for overstretch reasons.

All of these are just initial thoughts, and, as I said before, I think this topic, if sufficiently limited, could be a great resolution.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2011, 11:34:39 AM »

Substantial has never checked anything. To quote Scott Phillips from last year:
If there were ever a word the debate community were wedded to, its substantially. It won't go away. I think last year it was in the resolution 26 times. And a more loveless marriage there has never been. We all know the alleged "why" of substantially. We also all know that it fails to limit the topic in any meaningful way. The question, I guess, is "does the annoyance of including the word every year outweigh the 1 debate/50 years where it is useful to limit out Elian?". I think the answer is clearly yes. The problem is no one in the real world uses substantially in a precise or meaningful way.
...

Any consideration of an "alternative" must start from the recognition that
-this word has no precise meaning
-its inclusion is based on tradition, not utility
-the debates about it are universally bad for debate


Agency CP and Politics checks is also not an answer. Even speaking as a fan of counterplan/politics debates, you can drill a hole in my head if that's what every 2nr is going to be. First, no affs will talk about actual infrastructure issues. They will read agency specific advantages that really have little to do with infrastructure. The only other conceivable vision is one where teams say USFG and ardently refuse to defend or specify an agency (who thinks affs have to defend normal means anymore?). Then we can look forward to A-Spec, Agent CP theory, and "Perm - Do the CP" 2ARs. Sign me up!

One of the benefits of this topic is that it will encourage and necessitate agency specific research beyond what has happened with past resolutions. Each section of the critical infrastructure has an assigned Sector-Specific Agency (SSA). Politics DAs will not just be limited to congressional agency. Negatives will be largely guaranteed a normal means link to the SSAs even if the plan says "USFG." September GSU debates will start off with DAs on the internal dynamics of each organization. Affirmatives will have to warrant why their change is needed in a world where basic human capital is strained across the board in each one of these agencies (DHS, FDA, HHS etc.).

Uniqueness wise I think the CIKR topic is important. The president as well as congress seem hell bent on undermining the power of these agencies to do their job well by cutting resources and reducing regulatory action. Protection and resiliency programs are on the spending chopping block and are losing political favor for the extension of regulation power. This political climate means Affirmatives can claim a unique advantage while also linking to a fairly decent literature base on trading off with already overstretched agencies. Affirmatives then will have to prove that they are worth the risk of
1) Trading off with current efforts in an agency
2) trading off with zero sum $$$ programs on the chopping block.

Also I think there is a decent debate to be had on how new protection/resliency actions can undermine the pro-business anti-regulatory mood in Washington. Business confidence and cooperation with the government is also decent.

Literature and substantial:
Affirmatives will have to have a warrant why the USFG as well as the enforcement SSA agency is key. As most of the topic sections show, the protection/resiliency of each critical infrastructure is often within multiple jurisdictions. Generic negative ground in terms of States and localities will be important on this topic. Small and unpredictable affs may lack the evidence needed to substantiate a response to these CPs and/or other squo solves arguments.



Thanks for the info.  Given what is said, am I to understand that normal means implies the aff can be done without congressional action (example: aff has the SSA mandate more training programs for disaster response)?  So the key negative ground is an agency resources tradeoff DA or a spending tradeoff DA?  Traditionally (well, at least in my 9 years of college debate) these arguments are difficult for the negative to win.  What are the impacts to an agency tradeoff DA?  I understand what they could be in theory, but what does the evidence suggest?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!