College Policy Debate Forums
November 21, 2017, 06:07:31 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Treaties Topic Paper  (Read 4527 times)
lgarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« on: April 21, 2013, 02:04:17 PM »

attached.

* Treaties Topic Paper - Lincoln Garrett.docx (85.74 KB - downloaded 3333 times.)
Logged
Mike Davis
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2013, 07:53:53 PM »


Only six treaties? Would the topic committee be limited to just these six?
Logged
mcmc
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2013, 08:11:23 PM »


Only six treaties? Would the topic committee be limited to just these six?
"I want to note at the outset that while I think this is the best list of treaties anyone should feel welcome in the next phase of the process to submit a paper detailing the affirmative and negative ground of a treaty not discussed in this paper." p 4.
Logged
Mike Davis
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2013, 08:15:45 PM »

Thanks. I would be curious to see what other treaties people think should be on list before voting. I like the idea of a treaties topic, but only if there are 5 or so strong treaties with good ground.
Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2013, 08:30:26 PM »

If this is a legal topic, then anything dealing with "laws" is a legal topic.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2013, 11:15:08 PM »

agree that this is not a legal topic.
Logged
lgarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2013, 11:48:51 AM »

I have only thoroughly read through prez powers and arms sales papers, so I will save comparisons of the other papers for later. Don't know if this is the best thread to hash out similarities and differences so it can be moved if need be. I would like to make some arguments for treaties over arms sales and prez powers:

1. Prez powers overly incentivizes nebulous impacts-endless war, revitalization of American democracy, separation of powers, balanced administration of government etc. do not have the specificity necessary when compared to a politics DA. I am skeptical of the affirmative's ability to garner a specific scenario (that isn't solved in the short term by end the program CP). The solvency debate and comparisons for prez powers seem detailed, but the impacts do not. XO CP + flexibility internal net benefit + politics DA (with an environment impact). How can a war-making/unspecified/future impact outweigh this? This seems to put a high onus on the AFF to win a propensity for people to go to war that the NEG can sidestep by accessing external impacts via the politics DA that the AFF can probably not access (except via soft power).

2. Arms sales is subsumed by the Arms Trade Treaty. The ATT would be a large AFF on an arms sales topic. The ATT and arms transfers topic overlap so much I am not sure what the reason is to favor the more narrowly constructed arms topic instead of the still manageable, but considerably more diverse treaties topic.

3. Prez powers negative options are more narrow then they seem. I will agree the link on things such as drones good/bad is a good debate (wiretapping and indefinite detention good, probably not so much). It seems if the NEG doesn't want to rely on the politics DA they have to link turn the AFF. I say this under the assumption that the reasons wire tapping is good are not going to have a lot of overlap with why drones are good (outside the equivocation DA I guess). The AFF can water down NEG offense by phrasing their plan that doesn't absolutely preclude a program, pick the more advantageous uniqueness position and read more external impacts than the NEG. It seems what the paper calls DA's are actually impact turns of a much narrower scope then the AFF advantages.

I think topics should not overly incentive the use of the politics DA as a source of external offense. I think the terror/warfighting turns are ok, but not the most sustainable topic specific negative strategy, because it is not external enough.

4. XO CP's is gonna be a big deal. Anecdotal evidence indicates it was huge on the commander and chief topic. At best it will shape the topic in an annoying way like the EU and States CP have done to topics past. I think it will super charge the use of nebulous impacts that are unable to be timely or specific. Treaties are hard to CP away, especially with consent to be bound in the rez.

5. I don't really no who decrees what is a legal topic. Think Malgor is right about how much legal debate it would garner and whether prez powers counts. I am for being fairly liberal with what counts, it obviously counts more then treaties. I will say the notion seems to be let's pass a law and think about how current laws interact with a topic of primarily international and domestic significance (although this sees inevitable for any legal controversy the way people currently debate). Treaties seems to at least fit in the ballpark of this impression of legal topics.

6. Prez powers seems much more narrow then treaties. I don't know when terrorism became an impact everyone wanted to talk about, this has always been an impact that is easy to win a low risk of in my opinion. Treaties accesses many more impacts, in a higher degree of specificity, while giving the NEG access to DA's that are easily external to the case.

7. ICC captures a lot of prez powers offense. It integrates international law, it reigns in Obama, it stops drones etc, it does it with a better signal advantage and more external offense to weigh against the stop X CP.
Logged
tcram
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2013, 08:34:42 AM »

If, as the paper notes, "there are not many advantages intrinsic to the ratification process", why doesn't the 'stop the bad policies + conform but not ratify' stew of advantage CPs become the same bugaboo for this topic that the 'stop the bad policies XO CP' might become for Prez Powers? 

That question isn't meant to suggest that solvency deficits or add-ons cannot or won't be found (and I agree that treaties does more effectively skirt the blah-ness of process CPs which are certainly not helpful for learning how to argue), but could you comment on this dilemma? 
Logged
lgarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2013, 08:48:16 AM »

Fair point Tcram, some responses:

First, when I said not intrinsic to ratification I more meant that the main advantages stemming from the signal of the plan or the being bound would be credibly based/soft power type arguments. Other advantages would have to be won through the substance of the treaties, enforcement etc.

I don't think treaties has this bad policies problem because:

1. You can't fiat resolution of things like territorial disputes, ending proliferation, navigate-able waters etc. So unlike the instance of the XO CP definitely resolving the immediate harm of strikes in Pakistan for instance, the affirmative has a larger mechanism to which dispute the solvency of an advantage CP's under treaties.

2. Even if a NEG were to say implement conservation programs defended by the AFF ratifying the CBD, there is no real net benefit to a CP like this. It takes more work to get 67 senators to say yes to CBD, sure, but implementing the programs absent ratifcaiton is still probably sufficient to trigger a politics link, which is the only DA that would be net beneficial to a CP like this that attempted to PIC out of ratification.

I think whether or not ratification is necessary is a core debate. AFF teams will have to rely on the same durability/signal type warrants as they would in a prez powers resolution. I just think ratifying a treaty gives the AFF moreground to stand on if they want to dispute non-ratification CP's ability to solve core areas of the treaty and not have to rely on advantages stemming from the process. Arguments like guiding the direction of customary norms, generating reciprocal enforcement from other countries, US being more effective as an insider of international regimes then an outsider etc. are all arguments that I could envision generating credible solvency deficits.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  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!