College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:02:05 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: Resolutions for the ballot  (Read 27659 times)
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« on: June 13, 2011, 06:17:04 PM »

I will post some summarizing thoughts about the topic and the committee in the next few days, but here is the slate of resolutions approved by the topic selection committee. Thanks to all of the committee and the volunteers for their hard work. All of the specific information about voting and deadlines will be provided by Jeff Jarman, CEDA's Executive Secretary.

Because the resolutions are use a common stem I have also attached a pdf chart of the countries included in each topic.

1. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Egypt, Iran, Libya, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, Tunisia.

2. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Syria.

3. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Egypt, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen.

4. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen.

5. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Egypt, Morocco, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, Yemen.

6. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia.

* 2011-12 Country Chart.pdf (18.49 KB - downloaded 862 times.)
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
BrianDeLong
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2011, 10:34:07 AM »

Before the discussion of these resolutions begins, I want to congratulate and thank the topic committee and the University of Michigan team for their hard work. Gordon Stables deserves special recognition for his ability to guide the deliberative process of forty community member's opinions and advocacies for altering the topic options. The professionalism that Stables and the topic committee members bring to the table is an indication of their love for as well as the strength and cohesion of our community.

Great job everyone.
Logged
jtedebate
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2011, 01:07:03 PM »

Can someone explain the rationale for using "for" vs. "to"?  The meeting doc has several definitions...most fairly vague, one that says they mean the same thing, one in context of DA that assumes aid to former Soviet States...?  So is it gov't-to-gov't, NGOs, or both?  From what I've seen, the vast majority of DA goes to entities other than the government.

Thanks again TO all of you who worked hard on crafting the topic!
Logged
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2011, 01:15:28 PM »

I will have a longer note that details some of these items, but I do think the committee felt as though there are many forms of US democracy assistance that is provided to a range of organizations, including NGOs. The decision to use 'for' (a change from past practice) refers to the purposeful nature of the aid (i.e., democracy assistance to an NGO specializing in helping Egypt conduct their elections) even if the aid is not to the government or even spent in the country. An example of the latter is the USAID support for bloggers and journalists that eventually helped to lay the foundation for use of social media in the recent demonstrations. Much of that program didn't occur in the Egypt, but it was purposeful to assist the rise of those democratic institutions.  The committee knows that we don't dicate community practice, but we felt it important to try to reinforce that democracy assistance to institutions other than 'to the government' is an important part of the literature for this topic.

Gordon
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
ScottElliott
Full Member
***
Posts: 148


« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2011, 07:28:11 PM »

I will have a longer note that details some of these items, but I do think the committee felt as though there are many forms of US democracy assistance that is provided to a range of organizations, including NGOs. The decision to use 'for' (a change from past practice) refers to the purposeful nature of the aid (i.e., democracy assistance to an NGO specializing in helping Egypt conduct their elections) even if the aid is not to the government or even spent in the country. An example of the latter is the USAID support for bloggers and journalists that eventually helped to lay the foundation for use of social media in the recent demonstrations. Much of that program didn't occur in the Egypt, but it was purposeful to assist the rise of those democratic institutions.  The committee knows that we don't dicate community practice, but we felt it important to try to reinforce that democracy assistance to institutions other than 'to the government' is an important part of the literature for this topic.

Gordon

  Gordon is right. I can't think of a way to be true to the topic literature (believe I have tried) without going the "for" route. This is a substantial change from traditional policy debate resolutions. I am not sure of the outcomes of this decision. For example, I have been working on a Poland case---yes, I am serious--because the way the real world works, the USFG targets a country, but works through various NGO's and other countries. I am interested to see what happens when the desire to be honest about the literature on a topic runs into the "fakeness" of competitive academic policy debate. My prediction...top teams will run cases that claim zero advantages linked to the enhancement of democracy in the Mid-east. A sad, but true consequence of the need to win in policy debate. For the first time in years, however, I commend the Topic committee for writing resolutions that are true to the literature and not stupidly obtuse.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2011, 10:32:08 AM »

is there good evidence that to be topical you'll have to deal with NGOs that are physically in the country?  So, for instance, you could not give money to an NGO in China that then externally supports democratic movements in a target country.
Logged
ScottElliott
Full Member
***
Posts: 148


« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2011, 11:43:21 AM »

is there good evidence that to be topical you'll have to deal with NGOs that are physically in the country?  So, for instance, you could not give money to an NGO in China that then externally supports democratic movements in a target country.

The evidence I have found is the opposite. For example, USAID often funds democracy assistance programs in other countries "for" a target country. For example: Last weekm the U.S., through USAID and NED, gave Poland money so Tunisian politicians can fly to Poland for seminars on how to build a democracy from the ashes of a post-authoritarian state. You can't make this stuff up. LOL.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2011, 04:00:45 PM »

hmm i wonder why the word "for" was chosen instead of "in".  sure, it might cut out a few examples of how DA works, but i hope a majority of the best affs are at least directed within the borders of the target country.

not a lot of diversity on the ballot. 
Logged
Sarahjane
Newbie
*
Posts: 34


« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2011, 07:46:44 PM »

From what little Gordon has said above and this conversation: http://www.facebook.com/sarahjanegreen/posts/105446512883498 that includes members of the TC and others who were present- they selected "for" rather than "in" quite intentionally to preserve core literature about how the US can best support democratic movements in the nations listed. It does seem quite shocking to me that the TC has made this move, but it is a welcome shift/experiment in topic construction from my perspective.

the affirmative will still obviously have to win that the US is key-people will have to be open and prepared for all sorts of alternate agents that can do things like train bloggers in London. Which seems to severely limit crazy affs that use 3rd parties in 3rd locations.

It seems as if it would be an indication of unwillingness to accept different ways of wording resolutions that attempt to direct topics in ways that correspond with what seems to really be happening in the world if we were to insist that "for" necessitated "in".
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2011, 09:27:41 PM »

i don't think would deny what's really happening in the world.  if democracy assistance is sometimes given in a country, and sometimes occurs outside of it, a resolution that only deals with the assistance in a country is not denying the real world, it is having us debate some parts of it and not other.  not much different than the 'exclusion' that happens when we pick rez 1 vs 2,3,4,5, or 6.   we'll inevitably be debating some parts of arab spring and not others.

i haven't read any of the reports they did on 'for' v 'in' (just now reading through the updated country reports), maybe it's more limiting than i think.

it's certainly one of the big three surprises from the meeting.  iran being in 1/2 of the resolutions and the incredibly limited nature of the ballot are also a bit surprising.  seems like we coulda wrapped this up right after the paper won!
Logged
ScottElliott
Full Member
***
Posts: 148


« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2011, 06:06:45 AM »

Just to throw it out there....doesn't the inclusion of "for" not only gut the negative team's ability to run consultation counter-plans (IMO, a good thing), but now make consultation Affirmative ground? That should make a lot of teams that make their living on the neg by running "consult" shudder.

Scott
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2011, 08:07:41 AM »

You can read about the "in" vs. "to" debate in the Misc. Mechanism paper. 

"In" was too limiting if it was applied geographically.  Some countries have a majority of the democracy assistance taking place outside the physical borders of the country.

"To" would also have worked, but would have either been way too vague (in the direction of...) OR would have moved to the exclusively "government-to-government" direction which we definitely wanted to avoid.

"For" became the best middle ground quite quickly---it means "for the purpose of" the target country, but could stil occur outside the physical borders.

The idea of democracy (freedom for) leant itself to something "for" the countries in question rather than just "within their borders" or "to them."

These may not be the views of the committee, but it is the explanation as I understand it.  There was solid deliberation about the preposition for sure.  The agent, of course, is still the USFG and the democracy assistance has "to belong to it" so there are some good checks in both directions.   Enjoy, Kevin
Logged
jonahfeldman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96


« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2011, 10:21:27 AM »

Just to throw it out there....doesn't the inclusion of "for" not only gut the negative team's ability to run consultation counter-plans (IMO, a good thing), but now make consultation Affirmative ground? That should make a lot of teams that make their living on the neg by running "consult" shudder.

Scott


Oh snap, GBN is f'd.  But if the "for" pic is as good as the "the" pic....I've said too much
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2011, 12:41:00 PM »

Just to throw it out there....doesn't the inclusion of "for" not only gut the negative team's ability to run consultation counter-plans (IMO, a good thing), but now make consultation Affirmative ground? That should make a lot of teams that make their living on the neg by running "consult" shudder.

Scott

No
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
ozzy
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2011, 10:42:58 PM »

is it too late to add this to the slate?

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of the following countries: Afghanistan, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a security guarantee(s) and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2011, 02:16:49 AM by ozzy » 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!