College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 07:10:35 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: controversy papers for 15-16?  (Read 7477 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« on: April 08, 2015, 12:52:56 PM »

Hi all.  We have about three weeks for these papers.  Working on some controversy areas, not sure how timing will go and what will emerge.  Could certainly share some work and put in some research with folks if people are interested.  Here are some of the thoughts thus far:

--global rich-poor gap, poverty, globalization.  might end up being more a trade policy topic depending on who wants to work on this.

--global strategy and us reductions in hard power / us creation of new foreign policy principles

--sub-set of the grand strategy one above, but specific: US should demilitarize (reduce military presence) in Africa.

--global labor rights and a version of the domestic topic proposal through international law.  some good work on this is already done.

Let me know if you want to jump on any of these (kevindkuswa at gmail dot com).   Have a good one, Kevin
Logged
cramhelwich
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 67


« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2015, 01:20:12 PM »

Kevin's ideas look interesting--I hope that some of them come together and we get a strong slate from which to choose.

I am looking to organize a group to produce a paper on Israel AND Palestine--thinking broad ("foreign policy" or loose subsets) and bidirectional, but am open to ideas.

Please backchannel if you are interested (cramhelwich AT the email service run by our google overlords).

best,
dch
Logged
Stefan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 66


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2015, 08:56:43 PM »

I've been mucking around with something along the lines of

Resolved: The United States federal government should either substantially increase or substantially decrease its foreign military presence in one or more of the following countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Yemen, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.

I just need to work on some solvency sources for each of these.

There would need to be some balance between bidirectionality and the the length of the list.

* Militarypresence2.docx (123.38 KB - downloaded 2053 times.)
Logged
CouldaBeenaContenda
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2015, 09:49:40 PM »

I've been mucking around with something along the lines of

Resolved: The United States federal government should either substantially increase or substantially decrease its foreign military presence in one or more of the following countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Yemen, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia?   If it's mucking around that you're doing, you need to add Elbonia to your list.




I think I'd open my Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia negative overview with an adaptation of John Kenneth Galbraith's pithy remark about Southeast Asia: "If we were not in Vietnam, all that part of the world would be enjoying the obscurity it so richly deserves."  Maybe it could be updated to, "If it were not for the Captive Nations Week Resolution...".  Nah.  Not enough everyday people know what the Captive Nations Week Resolution is to be "in" on the joke, though one late former business partner of mine who was born and raised in the Asparagus Belt of western Massachusetts, which was a Lithuanian immigration magnet a century ago, upon seeing a Lithuanian doing something he found exasperating, shook his head and muttered, "Typical Lithuanian", just like we might say, or might have said in less sensitive times, "Typical Jew" or "Typical Polack".  I never would have guessed that America had enough Lithuanians that a 20th century, self-styled Tocqueville could develop such an insight.  But I digress.

Or if you choose to add the British, Dutch and French Guianas to your resolution and feature them in your program's affirmative case, I'd open with, "If it weren't for Reverend James Warren Jones..."  Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding them on my map.  I thought they were somewhere to the southeast of British Honduras.  Who was it who once said, "War is God's way of teaching us Geography"?

I see that Northwestern's debate juggernaut recently won its 15th NDT.  Congratulations to them!  I also have observed here recently that NDT participation has dropped from over 600 schools in 1963 and about 110 "subscribed programs" five years ago to about 85 last year and 76 this year, and the CEDA Nationals field is down by about one-third from half a dozen years ago, too.  How can any foundering program expect to compete against the megaprograms when the affirmative can pick from thirteen different countries to meddle in?  The megaprograms can assign at least two debaters - and maybe one graduate assistant - to each country.  In fact, they will be able to outresearch smaller programs even on their own selected, miniature golf sized turf.  I will expect the megaprograms to have canned disadvantages based on knowledge of ethnicities and ethnic rivalries that sociologists haven't yet discovered.  

The negative antidote used by smaller programs to combat unanticipated cases will necessarily become more "Kritik" positions, engendering even more ill will when outcomes are yet again predetermined by the judge's philosophies.

Quote
I just need to work on some solvency sources for each of these.

Why don't you just go with Elbonia as the sole beneficiary/victim of American attention/inattention?  Solvency for an Elbonia case will be a challenge, though, because of well documented Elbonian obstinance.



Hmm... it seems that Scott Adams wasn't very original when he penned that one.  I think he just recaptioned a real, pictorial incarnation of Afghanistan!

It may be necessary to "fiat" their compliance.  



Back in 1969-1970, when the NFL High School resolution was, "Resolved: That Congress should prohibit unilateral United States military intervention in foreign counties", we had this clever idea that if we wrote a case based on the relatively unfamiliar SEATO or CENTO treaties - remnants of the "pactomania" era - we'd really have the upper hand, though we were concerned that the bus drivers who judged many of those rounds wouldn't grasp them as treaties.  We passed on featuring the ANZUS treaty because we were afraid that, with phonetic recognition, some of our opponents would figure out too early which countries were included in that one.  

Unfortunately, our state university library did not contain enough relevant source material to fill out an eight minute 1AC based on either of those obscure treaties.  We needed someone to, "pull a Rick Sincere" for us, but that practice hadn't yet been invented, so it was like I often say when I explain why we never used low probability disaster DAs when I came back to school in 1980.  It wasn't that they were beneath us, it was that we didn't have any.


Seriously, I see the dilemma that you people face as you try to "save" intercollegiate policy debate from extinction.  You are trying to save debate for the benefit of your own program, but anything that you do that enables programs that are less committed to succeed than yours is will only encourage them to, "endeavor to persevere" if your so doing improves their own prospects of grabbing the brass ring - your brass ring - once in a while.  Still, I have to see a 13 country carousel as a double whammy: the teams that take the resolution seriously as a parameter for discussion will benefit from the ability to utilize their superior research capabilities, while the teams that are more familiar with the writings of Mr. or Mrs. Heidegger (like anyone outside the policy debate community knows or cares who that person is) will simply rehash their last years files and hope to win the judging assignment lottery.  Prediction: fewer subscribed NDT programs and fewer participating CEDA programs at the 2016 Nationals.  Pretty daring, huh?

- Michael W. Toland
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:33:44 PM by CouldaBeenaContenda » Logged

Dover (New Hampshire) High School debate team, 1967-1970
Dover High School Debate Coach, 1970-1971
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1970 (when we still spoke like human beings)
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1980-1981 (and when we didn't)
UNH assistant debate coach, 1980-1981
JustinGreen
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2015, 07:25:49 AM »

When is the exact due date?  Thank you
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2015, 08:50:56 AM »

When is the exact due date?  Thank you

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,6422.0.html

Mon, April 27th: Controversy Papers Due

Committee Votes Yes/No to Generate the Slate by Friday, May 1st
Ballot in play from Sat May 2nd to Saturday, May 16th
Wording Papers Due: Wednesday, June 3rd.
Meeting starts in Dallas, Fri-Sun June 12-14, 2015

Topic Release Date:  Friday, July 17th

Suggested Guidelines for Controversial Area Papers
By Gordon Stables
(Originally released June 2006, Modified March 2010, April 2012)
Logged
JustinGreen
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2015, 07:20:59 AM »

Millicent Hennessey, Charles Athanasapolous, Joe LeDuc and myself are working on:

Resolved: The United States should reduce all or nearly all military, economic, agricultural, democracy and/or humanitarian assistance to one or more of the following: Israel, Sub-Saharan Africa, and/or Latin America.
Logged
izak
Newbie
*
Posts: 32



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2015, 11:56:20 AM »

ASU is working on something along the lines of "withdraw military presence from Africa."
Logged
BrettBricker
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2015, 01:38:52 PM »

A few of us are working on an Israel proposal.  We are still collaborating about language, but topical affirmatives will (at least) be able to pressure Israel, remove diplomatic support/cover or slash military assistance.
Logged
RobGlass
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2015, 10:16:25 PM »

Kathryn Rubino, Joe Patrice, and I are working on a proposal based on "The United States should withdraw from one or more of the following treaties...". We're proposing NATO, the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, and the OAS as a foundation, but are looking to leave the final list to the wording committee.

If anyone else wants to contribute, feel free to backchannel me.
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!