College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:04:34 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: global labor topic paper  (Read 2755 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« on: April 26, 2015, 08:53:26 AM »

attached.


* pencil_labor.jpg (110.17 KB, 840x1114 - viewed 420 times.)
* Global_Labor_TOPIC-PAPER_2015_vfinal.pdf (2025.21 KB - downloaded 1139 times.)
Logged
atwoodruff
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2015, 06:12:33 AM »

I'll start some discussion with a question or two, but first of all thanks for the work you put into writing this paper- it's incredibly thorough and well-written.

1) My biggest concern relates to the question of uniqueness, which the paper never really addresses. In the section where you outline two possible affs, the evidence you include for Belarus says

"To the International Labor Organization–
Continue urging Belarus to cooperate and implement recommendations..."

and in the Zambia's section you say

"Today, an abundance of efforts are underway through the ILO in Zambia..."

And that is followed by evidence that lists a bunch of stuff the ILO is doing already. This seems to me like this would be a problem for the negative's ability to generate uniqueness for disads where the link doesn't depend on solvency (which is what my second question is about).

The major possible aff (discussed in the paper) that does seem to have solid uniqueness is the ILO reform/collective responsibility aff, but that aff has its own problems. Specifically, there's no way to target that action to a specific country/industry- maybe that's not a bad thing, but the paper seems very focused on producing specific debates about previously ignored countries which this wouldn't seem to allow. To bring this to a question, how do you think status quo efforts affect the negative's ability to generate unique offense?

2) I alluded to this in number 1 (and it's definitely related), but virtually all of the disads discussed in the paper require aff solvency to generate links. This seems like it could make being negative really hard in certain situations. For example, an aff that says the ILO should ask Turkey to pressure Belarus (asking other countries to pressure was an example of a possible aff listed in the paper). Belarus says no so your DAs don't link, but Turkey looks awesome for taking a leadership role. I'm curious what your thoughts are about ground based on the mechanism rather than solvency.

Best,
Austin
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 08:02:09 AM »

Hi Austin,

Thanks for the thoughts and reading through the paper so closely.  Short answer from me now, longer one in a few days.  To begin, a lot of this will depend on the various wordings and the way the topic focuses on particular countries.  If we are looking at Belarus and Zambia, uniqueness will not be hard to come by through solvency or the increased use of the ILO in either area.  The efforts currently underway simply allude to the possibility of solvency--they do not come close to being either a) a massive spotlight with full pressure on the problem; or, b) a resolution of the labor issues in each place. 

The other argument to keep in mind is that the aff will have to work hard to demonstrate solvency--all actions that will give the negative links, and the topic may specify a "significant expansion of efforts" which would add topicality into the negative's arsenal if the aff tries to hide behind what the squo is doing.

The uniqueness questions are mainly dealt with throughout the paper in terms of ways the aff can generate solvency--even if the ILO is active on one labor problem now. 

The other response here is to work through the negative options which are quite powerful, especially in that the neg will have great CP/K ground in tandem with defense against the aff's solvency--none of those options are weakened by the uniqueness question.

For your second question, again it will depend on the wording, but a big ILO recalibration aff could specify a particular industry, region, list of countries without a problem--there would also be ground there depending on the aff's advantages.  Your particular concern is if the ILO asks another country to pressure the target country...what would the negative say if the advantage is off the mediating country?  I think the negative would still have a lot to debate there and it would actually make for some really good rounds.  There would be links if the target country does not reform at all (it makes the mediator look worse) and all the arguments about conforming to ILO standards would still apply to Turkey or whoever we are talking about.  If the aff is based on Belarus saying no, that doesn't remove the links coming from ILO pressure or attempts to generate reform (domestic politics) or all the larger links to human rights and international forms of imperialism. 

The negative will have lots of options on this topic no matter how you slice it--the key will be some good wordings that open up space for solid aff solvency claims (and I think we can do that).

Finally, we could very easily pick a list of countries that is more or less willing to respond to pressure (or receiving less pressure now). 

More soon, thanks again,

Kevin

I'll start some discussion with a question or two, but first of all thanks for the work you put into writing this paper- it's incredibly thorough and well-written.

1) My biggest concern relates to the question of uniqueness, which the paper never really addresses. In the section where you outline two possible affs, the evidence you include for Belarus says

"To the International Labor Organization–
Continue urging Belarus to cooperate and implement recommendations..."

and in the Zambia's section you say

"Today, an abundance of efforts are underway through the ILO in Zambia..."

And that is followed by evidence that lists a bunch of stuff the ILO is doing already. This seems to me like this would be a problem for the negative's ability to generate uniqueness for disads where the link doesn't depend on solvency (which is what my second question is about).

The major possible aff (discussed in the paper) that does seem to have solid uniqueness is the ILO reform/collective responsibility aff, but that aff has its own problems. Specifically, there's no way to target that action to a specific country/industry- maybe that's not a bad thing, but the paper seems very focused on producing specific debates about previously ignored countries which this wouldn't seem to allow. To bring this to a question, how do you think status quo efforts affect the negative's ability to generate unique offense?

2) I alluded to this in number 1 (and it's definitely related), but virtually all of the disads discussed in the paper require aff solvency to generate links. This seems like it could make being negative really hard in certain situations. For example, an aff that says the ILO should ask Turkey to pressure Belarus (asking other countries to pressure was an example of a possible aff listed in the paper). Belarus says no so your DAs don't link, but Turkey looks awesome for taking a leadership role. I'm curious what your thoughts are about ground based on the mechanism rather than solvency.

Best,
Austin
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 08:55:30 AM »

...one other quick reply--Belarus has absolutely no uniqueness problem at all.  The reforms are small there and in the wrong areas.  For Zambia, take another look at the last two long cards: they point to a really nuanced debate about how much is being done as a result of international pressure.  I think the aff can win that substantial influence is necessary and can make a difference even though the ILO is already involved in the country.  This is a good case debate.

Case debates, right?  That is what we are hoping for (in part), no?  More on the attempts to pressure through third parties later, but the initial research shows that those efforts would be more multilateral, giving the negative great space for PICs (don't include Turkey or only include Turkey) and DAs linked to more international pressure. Plus, in the scenario below, there is no labor advantage so the aff might have trouble getting out of the "case advantage CP plus ILO trade-off net benefit" where the neg solves the third party advantage some other way and then argues that the ILO focus on child labor, for example, takes away from efforts in another area in a different region.  That DA links even if Belarus says "no."

In the end, these questions point to a major strength of this controversy area:  it encourages new and specific research about the case and the details of each country.
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!