Jump to content
kerpen

2008-09 Topic Choices

Which 08-09 topic do you want?  

1044 members have voted

  1. 1. Which 08-09 topic do you want?

    • Health Care
      106
    • Agriculture
      47
    • Energy
      456
    • Central Asia
      252
    • Immigration
      184


Recommended Posts

The problem with the energy topic is the limiter - incentives. That, I think, differentiates it from the NDT topic somewhat. Regardless, my vote is for Central Asia. There is some flaming good lit and I love me some good Russia/China debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also all for the Central Asia topic as well. Initially, I ranked it fairly low when it was on the ballot of five for this past year. However, I started picking up on some readings the past few months. You want an energy topic? Central Asia = oil. You want a military/heg topic? Central Asia = military bases. You want an awesome foreign policy/realism topic? Central Asia = lots of China/Russia debates.

 

I think it is VASTLY different than the Africa topic.

 

I will also say I was very impressed with the presentation of the Ag Subsidies topic at the topic meeting. This was an area that I thought lacked a lot of appeal for high school students...the presenters of this paper quickly changed my mind.

 

I will say that I think I will be happy with any of the five (although immigration is pretty iffy for me). I am concerned about recycling arguments for energy (we have been there/done that...college community very recently has done that).

 

I love the idea of camp lab leaders having to actually do some reading on the topic of Central Asia and/or Ag Subsidies to generate some potential arguments instead of recycling cases/positions that they have written in the past...which has been the trend the past few years.

 

Bring on the -stans! Ready for some great oil debates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which countries are actually in cantral asia? its w. hist ap exam all over again "your essay will have a bad score if you are asked for southeast asia and you talk about ... here's a map of the regoins"(my hist teacher the day b4 the exam). i only got a 3 so i probly messed that up; i prefer energy which will have an equally large amount of possible affs. those are my top two though, in my personal opinion, the others suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which countries are actually in cantral asia? its w. hist ap exam all over again "your essay will have a bad score if you are asked for southeast asia and you talk about ... here's a map of the regoins"(my hist teacher the day b4 the exam). i only got a 3 so i probly messed that up; i prefer energy which will have an equally large amount of possible affs. those are my top two though, in my personal opinion, the others suck.

 

 

US Dept of State identifies the following countries as Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Central Asia. It's a unique topic area, and decently defined in the lit (if people are really worried about Iran/Afghanistan/China cross-over, listing the countries solves that pretty well). The issues are amazing, and it's got substantially different problems from Africa.

 

My second choice would probably be Health Care since it's just so timely. There will be a deluge of up to date and sophisticated case evidence.

 

Engery & Ag Subsidies are next, with a slight nod to Ag Subsidies. I think it's too soon to do an Energy topic given how recently it was the college topic, and there are great other alternatives here, so as fascinating of a case area as that is, I'd rather look at something that hasn't been looked at in a while.

 

As for Immigration, the area is great, but the wording bothers me. Forcing a decrease seems to limit out a lot of the nuances of the current immigration discussion (switching from family preference to merit based systems, for example). It would be my last choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy

 

 

I think energy would be a good resolution for next year know how...well how the world can change energy and stop polluting the air...that is what is causing global warming...i know that would be a case for sure if we were to do Energy as a topic next year....vote Energy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted health care because I love soap boxing about socialism... :rolleyes:

 

Even though there aren't tons of different cases on the aff there are tons of dif advantage areas and types, meaning there's plenty of topical aff ground. There's lots of flaming lit on both sides and creative critical areas for both sides. It sounds ideal. The only flaw in the rez is the Neg coupling of establish means permanent T and the make-it-temporary CP will get really stupid teams some free ballots when the 1ar over-covers Normativity. :rolleyes:

 

My next choices would be as follows (in order from best to worst):

 

Central Asia- Well defined educational topic with plenty of good negative ground to check what is really a very broad (though rigid) topic. Not too many real far left Kritik affs on this topic which is probably good but is what also makes it my number two =(

 

Energy- This topic is tight... Maybe we can invite Al Gore to the TOC... The increasing ability of the debate community to get the stick out of its ass and put camp ev online for free balances out the large school bias on topics that were previously college cases.

 

Agriculture- Yawn... Don't think the community knows very much about this one which means it could be fun. At least it's not pandemics.

 

Immigration- wow... the fact that this is my last choice just shows how good the picks are this year. I really don't want to have the Agamben debate... I do like the possibilities for running Derrida and Deleuze, but crappy teams will almost inevitably make judges hate all these critical cases (maybe not Deleuze =D)

 

I'm not too good at catching crappy loopholes in topic wordings but I think the impact of that is over rated... the community usually settles into a set of cases that it will run and when it deviates from that it goes for squirly surprise affs anyway. The number of cases and how abusive they are really doesn't seem to have any bearing on how well the topic is worded... teams run them regardless of whether or not they're T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like central Asia because it is an area that is not discussed that often. It is definitally a topic where we will learn a lot. The only problem is that if it is picked, I forsee a lot of T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the resolutions seem better-suited than others, mostly because of the breadth and depth. The health care topic leaves the narrowing to the literature, I guess... my first instinct is to say that there's relatively few ways to implement a universal healthcare system reasonably and topically, though I could definitely be wrong.

The agriculture topic I actually quite like. The word "reduce" specifies that the policy has to be a pre-existing one, which narrows the field down immensely. Either the affirmative could eliminate one subsidy (corn or wheat), or the aff could pass a plan banning agricultural subsidies for a free market-type aff. The topic opens up a far more technical discussion of economics than any of the topics I've debated ("uhhh, you spend money! That's bad" "No it isn't!"), which I think is extremely desirable.

The energy topic, I'm not sure about. I mean, I LOVE the subject matter. Energy is an amazingly important topic to discuss, and one will be central to the future of our species. But it seems to me like the word "incentives" is more than a little broad, encompassing everything that could possibly make anyone want to do anything. Is there a definition in the literature? Not sure.

The Asia topic I just reject out of hand. It's even more broad than the Africa topic. The Wikipedia page lists three possible definitions of Central Asia: the Soviet Union one covering Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikstan (the four countries directly to the south of Kazakhstan); the "common definition" adds Kazakhstan; and the UNESCO definition even adds Mongolia, Afghanistan, and parts of India, Pakistan, Iran, eastern China (Jinjiang and Tibet), and southern Russia. Plus, there's no specification of what kind of "foreign assistance" the countries are to recieve. I am just a little bit skeptical of any topic that could include anything from giving more F16s to India to building a nuclear reactor for Pakistan to sending more American troops to Afghanistan to sending doctors to Uzbekistan to teaching Chinese children how to read English. It's just too fucking huge.

I do agree that it's substantively different than the Africa topic because it includes all possible manner of foreign assistance. But that's what makes it shitty, so whatever.

As for Immigration, I think the same thing applies as agriculture, that because it says reduce rather than increase, it limits the topic down to pre-existing policies. However, it sort of justifies very narrow cases, like allowing a single person who has been denied entrance to the United States. Sure, the neg can run substantial T, but that's basically it, and the Aff can spend ten hours writing a 65-point block against it. Of course, there might a reasonably good Hollow Hope sort of argument out there arguing that focusing our efforts on individual cases of citizenship and immigration just masks the real inequalities of the system as a whole - sort of an Elian Gonzales thing, though that's probably not the best example. I am really excited to finally see a topical Borders aff, and I think the debate there will be very rich and interesting. It sort of encapsulates the very foundations of any immigration debate - why do we keep people out of our country at all? Why are "our" citizens better than "theirs"? How does the division between "this" country and "that" one prop up inequality, injustice, and even war? Fascinating.

 

I'd be fine with Immigration or Healthcare, but I especially like Agriculture. It's just new and fresh, something debaters don't think about but actually profoundly affects a lot of the political life in the country. First, the economy, both in a direct sense and in a theoretical, "what type of economy do we want" sense; second, our ability to produce food for people of our country and others; third, the political climate (imagine the impact this will have on congresspeople from the Midwest!); fourth, the science and mechanics of agriculture (repealing subsidies might encourage or discourage things like genetic engineering or hydroponics). There is sort of a paucity of critical ground, other than overt things like cap, neolib or statism. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It might force people to actually investigate new critical ground in search of something relevant, instead of falling back on the same old critical authors. Someone might even come up with a good K of agricultural society, with an anarcho-primativism alt. Obviously the resolution is narrow, but that means we get really well-developed debates with a few strong positions that have been built up and researched over the course of a whole year.

Of course, if someone can show me a good, narrow definition of alternative energy incentives, I am SO THERE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's a thoroughly interesting argument that most people are sort of dismissive of. We have this sort of assumption that our lives are better in an agricultural society, that length is more important than quality of life, or even that length IS quality of life. I recall an article by Jared Diamond (lost the URL) where he points out that when hunter-gatherers began converting to sedentary societies, rates of measurable diseases (ones that affect bones, the only thing we still have to test against) went way up, and life expectancy dropped 5-10 years. In fact, hunter-gatherers typically only had to work 20-30 hours a week. And then there's the ecocide of the modern eras, the nuclear weapons, the massively destructive wars, etc. But hey, we have science. And television!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love a question i got once about it...

 

'so does that mean we get to club women and ravage them in our caves?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally prefer Energy. My reasons are similar to ones who posted above. But I think its the topic that would be more educational. I didn't notice the incentives the first time around. But I am willing to accept that along with the resolution.

 

While health care and immigration would be massive on K's and T's. Which wouldn't be to fun. Lots of moral stuff as well =/

 

Agriculture - I am not a big fan of agriculture. To many little details in this topic

 

While Asia is just like this year's topic; I am not a big fan of this years topic since theres a massive explosion of arguments. I'd rather learn about less arguments but more throughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agriculture - I am not a big fan of agriculture. To many little details in this topic

 

 

 

Here in lies the death-nail of Agriculture. So many people (and I am referencing many of the other previous posts as well) are dismissive of Ag. subs as a bland case. I don't think many of you realize the intricacies, stated several times by dif. people about the effects of ag. on our society. And for those of you who are HUGE on the energy topic there is still plenty of ground for energy adv. through the subsidies debate.

 

That being said, I don't necessarily believe all the hype about it being so new/fresh that it would require a lot of new research. It was, after all, 1 of the topic areas the year previous energy. It was just so dull, that no one really selected it as a good aff. area...

 

That being said I voted Agriculture, I'm tired of Energy (debating it through subsidies and in the energy topic proper) plus there are always so many in-roads to energy to have it be a topic unto itself just seems redundant. That would be like having the topic area be prolif. I mean really, what's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only does it HAVE A TON of lit and a lot of stuff that will be going on during the year, but there is lots of international action (kyoto), lots of econ and environment ground, great politics links, K links, and a solid research base that is predictive and responsive in nature

 

and HUGE GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS! OMG! And then we could run a sweet Spending scenario with the Mead card as the impact, JUST LIKE WE DO EVERY YEAR!! What an original strategy, because you know that there are NO critique links in the other topics at all... psh politix is so hard to link into Central Asia, the same goes for Immigration. whoofta, I'm so glad for your indepth analysis on ONE topic that applys to all of them... im happy that you decided to put thought into this one

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i voted immigration, yet that is not whats important in this post, what is is ENERGY. The National Lego League's topic this year is energy, why would we want to debate something thats been debated in college and other organizations have already done?

 

Personally immigration appears to be the best solution to me :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the basic meanings of the Topics(to my understanding).

 

Health Care-bassically the same as the resolution now except not dealling with africa.

 

Argriculture-I THINK this has to do with like farming and things

 

Energy-self explainatory. how should we be making or using energy? coal, sun, oil, etc.

 

Central Asia-umm i have no idea mabey just a random topic about CA

 

Immagration-the traveling of non-american citizens into the united states

 

 

I am from latino desent so i really wanna do Immmagration. i think this would be good for the resolution because that is really a BIG deal today. it seams like everyone is throwing fits on how we have to many (following comments are not ment to be insultive just made up on the spot!) we have too many asian people here. we have to build a wall because mexicans are sneeking over the boarder, the black people(black people are sweet by the way) well just the same problems with them... this is a lot of what the media is saying. being latino(those latino's out there know what i am talking about) we have strong beliefs of culture. We think that family is a big deal. so if you leave japan to get a better job, you NEED to bring your family. but some people disagree! I really think that we should disscuss this topic so that debaters can learn the true information of what is happening with immagration and not what the media is "programming us with"!

 

 

 

ALL STATMENTS OF RACE PROBLEMS MADE DO NOT REFLECT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

please, for the luva God, spell "immigration" correctly

its at the top of the page. for pete's sake!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...