College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 09:22:59 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: Treaty withdrawal topic  (Read 1976 times)
Kathryn Rubino
Newbie
*
Posts: 45


« on: April 27, 2015, 07:58:45 PM »

Hi all,

Please see the attached topic paper.

Thanks,
Kathryn

* Topic Paper-- Treaty Withdrawal.docx (111.22 KB - downloaded 443 times.)
Logged
RobGlass
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2015, 08:22:26 PM »

Some quick notes:

A. The proposed base stem got cut out of the revision that was posted. “Resolved: The United States should withdraw from one or more of the following treaties...”

B. An example generic treaty topic could be "Resolved: The United States should withdraw from one or more of the following treaties: NAFTA, NATO, the United Nations, the WTO, and/or the INF."

C. Two examples of potentially targeted topics could be:

An economic topic: “The United States should withdraw from one or more of the following treaties: CAFTA, NAFTA, SKFTA, the IMF, and/or the WTO.”

A Latin America topic: “The United States should withdraw from one or more of the following treaties: CAFTA, NAFTA, the OAS, the World Bank, or the IMF.”
Logged
BruceNajor
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 09:01:46 PM »

Great paper y'all. Thank you for submitting it!

Would the authors support a wording that asked the affirmative to "substantial reduce support for" as opposed to withdrawal? My initial concern would be the gravity of affirmative departure from the status quo against negative CPs that reduced US commitment in ways that avoided total withdrawal but still solved a healthy portion of the "over commitment bad" literature.

Thanks again for the paper!
Logged

Bruce Najor
Wayne State Debate
BruceNajor[at]Gmail[dot]com
RobGlass
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 09:22:06 PM »

Great paper y'all. Thank you for submitting it!

Would the authors support a wording that asked the affirmative to "substantial reduce support for" as opposed to withdrawal? My initial concern would be the gravity of affirmative departure from the status quo against negative CPs that reduced US commitment in ways that avoided total withdrawal but still solved a healthy portion of the "over commitment bad" literature.

Without speaking for my colleagues, I would be open to a wording like that. It probably goes without saying that we'd have to pick treaties with some care to ensure that there is the possibility of reducing support for them in some sort of graded way (e.g. NATO and the UN could probably work, NAFTA would be difficult, something like New START probably couldn't function under that). That concern aside, I think that's a fully viable stem.
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!