College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 07:06:49 PM *
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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Info on All Six Controversy Papers Submitted  (Read 11106 times)
jamesherndon3
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2014, 12:38:42 PM »

I agree that all the papers do a good job (great set) of defining the topic and saying that it could be a usfg should or passive resolutions option.

I would think the committee would reflect that and the choices as explained would reflect that.  If there was a paper (and poverty comes closest) that said this ought be passive, then the area would be a vote for that.  But none of them seem hard wired either way.

Rashad - agreed it is certainly not a rule.  Agree on mandate for change.  IMHO, The slate of resolutions reflects a major shift in values.
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2014, 02:53:05 PM »

I agree with Mr. Herndon in his implicit argument that both agentless passive and more traditional resolutions for (almost) any of these topic areas would be a good idea.

Voters probably want to decide passive/active question when they vote on topic wording.
Logged
Brandon García
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2014, 03:27:46 PM »

I have a question not sure where to ask it or if its already answered but who decides what topic falls under what category? Some papers can fall under more than one category and if the topic committee does when will that be released?
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2014, 03:47:45 PM »

Some of the papers talk about the categories, others leave it open.  In many cases it depends on the wordings.  The committee will work on determining what area each wording will be connected to and announce that at the meeting.  For example, one labor wording might be domestic and another could (although not necessary) be global.  In that case, the category of the wording would be based on which wording gets selected.  I hope that helps. 
Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2014, 06:56:57 PM »

Last year, each topic paper was classified as international, domestic, or legal before the community voted on the controversy area. What prompted the change to make the decision regarding international, domestic, or legal after the wording committee decided a slate of resolutions?
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2014, 07:10:23 PM »

Jeff,

That is not true.  The Econ paper last year had a specific section about "Legal/Courts" wording--in fact, you worked on it!  If that paper had won, we could have had a wording that was domestic and another that was legal.  That could happen with inequality this time around or some of the other papers.

The controversies do not have to be forced into one single category.  Are you rolling with the conversation or have you put a 'T' on the front of that process? Smiley

Kevin

Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2014, 10:09:52 PM »

I didn't realize the wording committee actually gave poverty two possibilities. Here is the text of the old controversy announcement:

"1. Arms Sales - The USFG should substantially reduce its arms transfers to one or more of the following:  (India, israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan). International topic
2. Federal Definitions - The USFG should change one or more of its definitions.  Legal topic
3. Democracy - The College Debate Community (CDC) should increase its democracy assistance to the United States federal government.  Domestic topic
4. IPR - The United States should substantially reform substantive standards for eligibility in its patent system.  Legal topic
5. War Powers - The war powers of the President of the United States should be substantially limited.  Legal topic
6. Treaties- The United States should ratify one or more multilateral treaties. International topic
7. Poverty - Direct action against poverty in the United States should be expanded. Domestic or legal topic"

from: http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,4810.0.html

I shall ask a rephrased question then. Is the topic committee going to do a similar assigning to the controversy areas? I know you mentioned that assigning happening with the specific resolution wordings. I know some of them are presumed. For instance, all of the poverty suggested wordings/resolutions say "in the U.S." which seems to indicate it should be a domestic (or perhaps legal if you had an odd mechanism) topic.

Sidenote: I worked on the courts section for the war powers topic after the controversy area was determined.
Logged
Jolie
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2014, 08:49:07 AM »

Is there a reason that the Latin America topic did not appear on the ballot?  I'm sure that this has been discussed somewhere, but I can't find it.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2014, 11:47:10 AM »

Jeff,

In terms of the side note, I knew you had done some good courts work Smiley, just didn't recall on what area.  For the categories that cover each controversy, I do think there is a possibility that some of the controversies would stretch into multiple areas depending on the wording.  Labor union, for example, will most likely be domestic, but the paper does not preclude international and there is even a remote possibility it could have a legal wording.  I'll check in on the category rubric and provide some more specifics. 

Joel,

The Latin America paper did not make the ballot.  A majority of the committee members voted not to include it and the general reasoning (although individual committee members may have other concerns) was that more direction and development was necessary. 

Kevin
Logged
ArnealP
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2014, 12:35:10 PM »

Jeff,

In terms of the side note, I knew you had done some good courts work Smiley, just didn't recall on what area.  For the categories that cover each controversy, I do think there is a possibility that some of the controversies would stretch into multiple areas depending on the wording.  Labor union, for example, will most likely be domestic, but the paper does not preclude international and there is even a remote possibility it could have a legal wording.  I'll check in on the category rubric and provide some more specifics. 

Joel,

The Latin America paper did not make the ballot.  A majority of the committee members voted not to include it and the general reasoning (although individual committee members may have other concerns) was that more direction and development was necessary. 

Kevin

I think that the larger question that hasn't been answered, though, is why last year's process was apparently different than this year's. Last year, there was specific designation of each topic area into a particular category (international, legal, domestic, etc.), but this year, that decision is apparently being left up to the final decision of the final wording. Why? This is especially puzzling considering that papers, such as the treaties topic, included whole sections on why they could be considered one area as opposed to another (in the case of treaties, why it could be considered legal instead of automatically international).

I apologize if this sounds accusatory in any way. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this was the case.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  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!