Jump to content
Y?

2009-2010 College Debate Topic

Recommended Posts

Hey. When is the 2009-2010 college debate topic chosen?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey. When is the 2009-2010 college debate topic chosen?

 

Thanks.

 

final decision is made in late july, usually around the 29th or 30th. I believe the CEDA topic committee meets in early June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taboo topic looks amazing..but I can almost hear the shrieks in the admin offices when the alumn find out that the campus debate team is affirming some of those practices - you thought the fall out from the '08 CEDA final was something....yoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The taboo topic paper is really interesting but I would not want to debate it - Russia or immigration are what I think would be the best debates (though the immigration paper isn't as well written as some of the others)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the taboo topic has terrible policy neg ground. the topic has no chance of winning for that reason.

 

i like the russia and the nuclear weapons topics. i hope nukes win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anything will be better then more ag subsidies, esp. if its something with good relations/econ/case ground

 

I don't support the fincial institutions topic - too many questions of random country counterplans and not the neg ground I like

Edited by bob hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't support the fincial institutions topic - too many questions of random country counterplans and not the neg ground I like

While interesting, I agree the IMF/World Bank Topic would be an awful resolution to debate. For one it would suggest a radical transformation on precedent for what future topics could look like no longer advocating changes within the USFG but rather things that are impossible for any intellectual individual to advocate within the US which kind of puts a new meaning to policy debate. By this I refer to some of the resolutions suggested in this reform international finance institutions use NON-USFG agents. As mentioned this explodes country counterplans.

 

While I like the immigration topic, it definitely has some issues. I do like the fact that it is interesting and relatively pertinent, however, the wording of the resolutions proposed should really be questioned. One of them suggests "The USFG should reform policies towards illegal aliens in the United States" which allows affirmative biderectionality meaning they could take a hardline or soft stance on immigration. I think in order for immigration to have any chance of flying it should say "promoting rights" or "advancing rights". That being said I think a combination of the 2nd and 3rd resolutions would be viable. Out of the resolutions proposed the second one would be feasible if "increasing/promoting/advancing rights" was added.

 

Regardless, however, one thing I would be VERY WEARY of with the immigration topic is that it is way too politically charged for a policy debate resolution. Many debaters and judges (like myself) have very strong stances on immigration and I fear judge bias on the issue will effect the outcome of certain decisions as a result,

 

 

The Taboo topic is doable but it seems to promote bad debates and preposterous irony affs that no team wants to debate. Some of these topics honestly promote very bad messages and it would disgust me to see these debated and a potential affirmative win. I think morality at this level should not be brought into the debate round. Additionally, with resolutions like increasing federal regulation explodes ground and can mean both legalization and bans.

 

I will not go into the Nuclear Weapons Policy topic although I do like it. However, my favorite topic is easily the Russia Cooperation one. It seems interesting and a foreign policy topic that I believe hasn't been done on the college level. There seems equitable ground on both sides. Plenty of policy and critique ground so one direction isn't favored over the other. Additionally, the topic doesn't have nearly as much political bias as Taboo and Immigration.

Edited by azstud
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia topic is just the same shit we debate every year. Awkwardly worded, 1/2 page long topic that ensures aff gets their war, environment, and economy impacts, and neg gets all their generic, thoughtless PIC's and a link to politics every round.

 

Besides that, I'd be happy with any topic. Banking and Nuclear weapons policy will force the debate into a couple key areas, but those areas are still really deep (at least on the K side, think of all the different flavors of nuclearism and security critiques for nuclear weapons, or anti-capitalism and imperialism for banking). I particularly like that most of the wordings for banking don't use the USFG as actor. Of course, those absolutely won't get picked because they would radically alter CP theory, no one could recycle their generic PIC's, and schools would have to come up with something to replace politics. I'll be surprised if the topic committee even allows those wordings on the ballot if that topic is picked (last year, they decided the proposed Latin America topic wasn't worded well enough, so they just removed it from the ballot so it couldn't be voted on).

 

Taboo rocks, but we all know it's not getting picked.

Edited by koslow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you're not down with more traditional policy impacts or generic PICs - how does the taboo topic avoid them? The topic paper says that the affirmative would be able to access an econ advantage and the negative gets politics and can run Agent PICs...pretty sure you just dissed those args.

 

You'll probably say something like I love the K and it gives me really sweet K ground. Sure, maybee you would have a really strong link, but when is the last time a K debate was lost at the link level? I've only seen that happen in one debate against neoliberalism and it was on this past years topic.

 

With that in mind, I'm not a politics or PIC hack. I just really like traditional policy debate, nothing is more fun then winning a debate on a DA and case.

 

I would be ok with nuclear weapons, but it really looks like Russia is the topic. I know that my school is putting it first along with most schools that are more straight up. Debaters love foreign topics and body counts, its just the nature of the game for the majority of the community.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russia topic is just the same shit we debate every year. Awkwardly worded,

 

Who cares about "awkwardly worded"?

 

I've heard this complaint recycled endlessly. Honestly, who cares?

 

Legal wording is often awkward because the need for detail and precision trumps the need for stylistic elegance. A will is often inelegantly worded, for instance, because it's logically assumed that it's better to avoid fights over the legal disposition of the deceased's property than it is to really impress everyone with rippling prose.

 

You aren't reading the topic at a poetry slam. You're attempting to determine the parameters of the resolution.

 

Ag was awkwardly worded. It did what it was supposed to do, though, by largely confining policy debates to broad subsidy categories while allowing the aff to avoid getting skewered on PICs. "At least...nearly all" was an awkward formulation. I'm not sure it was the best possible option for debate. However, I really don't care if its muscular and Hemingwayesque.

 

I know this may sound terribly snarky, but I've also generally found that the people yelling the loudest about inelegance aren't necessarily vying for a Pulitzer, if you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can mount a defense of Russia without answering the following (chain of) arguments:

 

1. Generic DAs aren't unique. We co-op now.

 

2. Unlike nuclear policy, many Russia affs simply don't have a good base of negative literature (sub bumping springs to mind.) Most nuclear policy proposals, on the other hand, get debated out on their merits.

 

3. The scope of the topic combined with the problematic nature of generic Russia disads will probably push a Russia topic toward conditioning/QPQ counterplans. While many may disagree, I find such debates tactically effective but substantively vacuous.

 

I'd much rather hear a debate that deploys the deep and nuanced literature over a No First Use policy than resolve whether we should condition naval rules of the road on partial Georgian withdrawal/treatment of Russian Jews/ European gas deliveries.

 

Come on. Defenses of the Russia topic (relative to nukes) are 1ac-centered. Teams are contemplating cool affs, not cool debates in the last rebuttals.

Edited by Antonucci23
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how anyone can mount a defense of Russia without answering the following (chain of) arguments:

 

1. Generic DAs aren't unique. We co-op now.

 

2. Unlike nuclear policy, many Russia affs simply don't have a good base of negative literature (sub bumping springs to mind.) Most nuclear policy proposals, on the other hand, get debated out on their merits.

 

3. The scope of the topic combined with the problematic nature of generic Russia disads will probably push a Russia topic toward conditioning/QPQ counterplans. While many may disagree, I find such debates tactically effective but substantively vacuous.

 

I'd much rather hear a debate that deploys the deep and nuanced literature over a No First Use policy than resolve whether we should condition naval rules of the road on partial Georgian withdrawal/treatment of Russian Jews/ European gas deliveries.

 

Come on. Defenses of the Russia topic (relative to nukes) are 1ac-centered. Teams are contemplating cool affs, not cool debates in the last rebuttals.

agreed, plus nukes suck up the russia good offense – you can access most of the central russia coop ground thru disarm. however, we disarm now and there's advocates for conditioning our disarmament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antonucci, awkward wording matters: 1. It's harder to attract novices (obviously, I have little firsthand experience with this, but I've read enough people complaining about it on edebate). 2. You know, there are some rounds that were actually won on T: or means either wheat or all 7 other subsidies. Awkward wording makes it more difficult to navigate what the topic means. 3. Who says that debate isn't a poetry slam? Everyone seems to accept that debate is a constructed performance, even for those teams who perform by spreading politics cards. I read a really good poem by Shanahan, which I assume was a Fort aff a while back, in which he reads the resolution about half way through. It's definitely the worst-line of the piece (and he quoted Heidegger, the topic committee wrote worse than Heidegger).

 

Not trying to have a debate here about the elegance of topic wording vs. division of ground/whatever, just saying, elegance is a reasonable concern.

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...