College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:35:52 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: 2015-2016 Resolution Ballot Available  (Read 2610 times)
ceda
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 128


« on: July 01, 2015, 03:32:06 PM »

The ballot is available online: http://www.cedadebate.org/1516resolution.

Votes are due by midnight (central), Wednesday, July 15.
Results will be announced on Friday, July 17.

Only 2014-2015 CEDA members are eligible to vote. A membership list is available at: http://www.cedadebate.org/1415membership. If your school is not listed in error, please let me know right away.
You must have an account on this site (the main CEDA site, not the forums) and it must be flagged as eligible to vote. Let me know if I need to set up an account for you, a new coach, or your proxy.
If you are not members, and need to join, please pay the membership fee online at:  http://www.cedadebate.org/store.

Let me know if you have any questions or problems with the website.

As a reminder, the following resolutions are on the ballot:

Resolution 1. Resolved:  The United States should significantly enhance its military presence in Afghanistan, the Baltic States, Iraq, and/or Ukraine; or significantly reduce its military presence in Bahrain, Djibouti, and/or the Republic of Korea.

Resolution 2. Resolved:  The United States should either significantly enhance its military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria; or significantly reduce its military presence in Bahrain, Djibouti, and/or Saudi Arabia.   

Resolution 3. Resolved:  The United States should reduce its military commitment to, by at least significantly reducing its forward deployed forces in, one or more of the following:  the Baltic States, Gulf Cooperation Council member states, Japan, the Republic of Korea.

Resolution 4. Resolved:  The United States should significantly reduce its military presence in one or more of the following: the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the Greater Horn of Africa, Northeast Asia.

Resolution 5. Resolved:  The United States should either significantly increase its military presence or significantly reduce its military presence in one of the following: Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Baltic States, Djibouti, Iraq, the Republic of Korea.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2015, 05:47:06 PM »

vote for 3!
Logged
repko
Full Member
***
Posts: 108


« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2015, 09:47:28 PM »

Very busy with camp biz, but I was wondering if the Topic Committee has reactions to the WMJ-Roark paper.

... As it relates to "enhance = uber Aff", I do not think every one of their cards is a slam-dunk... but I do think the Winnefeld ev in their paper is solid. And, on balance, I think the Aff ev is better than the neg "limiters". So, I am slightly worried about greater-than-intended multidirectionality for ballot options with "enhance".

But, I wasn't at the meeting and the TC knows a lot more about this than I do - so I wanted to hear their take.

 Best,

   Will
Logged
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2015, 09:44:00 AM »

Sorry to take a while to get to this, closing down one camp and going to another.

Enhance was designed to allow the Afghanistan AFF that extends the deadline for troops to stay in the country.  The committee thought that this affirmative might struggle with "increase" as there would be no quantitative increase in troops.  The argument was that the small affirmatives that would be let in would be outweighed by letting in the core affirmative of Afghanistan.

That said, enhance was removed from resolution #5 because of the concern of small AFF's and for the idea that the Affirmative would just have to be ready to go on the increase violation.  Therefore, if you are looking for meaningful choice and are concerned about enhance, vote #5.

RG
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!