Jump to content
Y?

2009-2010 College Debate Topic

Recommended Posts

I have not heard some groundswell of support for Russia. I am not sure why there's a meme that Russia will be picked - everyone who articulates that meme also mentions that they don't really like the topic.

 

Who's the silent majority on this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because before the papers were written all the policy teams wanted the Russia topic they "missed out on" when Russia lost to Ag last year. Except then everyone started to realize that this year's Russia topic is not quite the same as last year, that the framers are different people than had previously pushed it, and that there are other topics in the running. When people started shifting away from the previous (apparent) Russia consensus towards other topics, everyone seemed to assume they were the only ones and that Russia was still a shoe-in.

 

I think you're right, I don't think Russia is necessarily the winner. Support for it seems to be waning. But a lot of people still think it will win, and a lot of the teams who changed their minds will still rank it 2nd. It has a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because before the papers were written all the policy teams wanted the Russia topic they "missed out on" when Russia lost to Ag last year. Except then everyone started to realize that this year's Russia topic is not quite the same as last year, that the framers are different people than had previously pushed it, and that there are other topics in the running. When people started shifting away from the previous (apparent) Russia consensus towards other topics, everyone seemed to assume they were the only ones and that Russia was still a shoe-in.

 

I think you're right, I don't think Russia is necessarily the winner. Support for it seems to be waning. But a lot of people still think it will win, and a lot of the teams who changed their minds will still rank it 2nd. It has a shot.

 

Yeah, you are right.

 

I just hope it isn't Russia. Good work on the topic paper, but it's increasingly obvious that the actual topic would end being the QPQ parade of horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not heard some groundswell of support for Russia. I am not sure why there's a meme that Russia will be picked - everyone who articulates that meme also mentions that they don't really like the topic.

 

Who's the silent majority on this?

Mine comes mostly from a vague superstitious belief. I don't want it to be Russia, so it probably will be.

 

To be honest, I am becoming pretty excited about the idea of nuclear weapons. I would still significantly prefer Taboo, but I just seriously don't see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No serious collegiate-level policy debater says that.

 

My second choice would be the nuclear policy topic, as that one is probably caters to both sides of the spectrum the best. There are the policy impacts and links that are rather straightforward, while still providing politics links both ways, and the reps/discourse K links that so many of us love (Kato anyone?).

 

*ahem*

 

clearly Kato doesn't ever apply on any other topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a point that I missed?

 

Kato applies not because of the topic, but because of the way people decide to debate about nuclear war on every topic. No topic will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*ahem*

 

clearly Kato doesn't ever apply on any other topic...

 

Have you ever read "Nuclear Globalism" (the Kato article everyone quotes)? There are a couple good cards about nuclear war reps, but really it's a critique of nuclearlism, like Schell or Lifton. It's a very specific critique for that topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever read "Nuclear Globalism" (the Kato article everyone quotes)? There are a couple good cards about nuclear war reps, but really it's a critique of nuclearlism, like Schell or Lifton. It's a very specific critique for that topic.

 

Yes - I have read that article. In fact, my non-violence file on evazon probably has more Kato cards in it than any other file produced. I do recognize that Kato is *actually* criticizing not only schell but the liftons out there who ignore other equations to get to the bomb.

 

 

 

However--that's like saying 'Zizek applies more to this topic than last topic'. Just because youre generics might have a little bit more useable (Read: correct) interpreation of their work doesn't mean that they are all of sudden a huge weighing stone against the 'you still have your links, k debaters. stop bitching' mindset.

 

 

Do you have a point that I missed?

 

Kato applies not because of the topic, but because of the way people decide to debate about nuclear war on every topic. No topic will change that.

 

And Churchill applies not because of the topic, but because of the way people decide to not talk about native american issues. No topic will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And Churchill applies not because of the topic, but because of the way people decide to not talk about native american issues. No topic will change that.

 

People talk about nuke war a lot more often in debate than native american issues. I still don't see your point.

 

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. You said "people always say you get statism links," and I said "no serious collegiate-level policy debater does that," and you pointed to a quote that wasn't about a statism critique (and may or may not be from a serious collegiate-level policy debater).

 

Is there any serious doubt that the nuclear reliance topic is the best marriage of k and policy?

 

I mean, Kato and Lifton and Schell are old news in this category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People talk about nuke war a lot more often in debate than native american issues. I still don't see your point.

 

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. You said "people always say you get statism links," and I said "no serious collegiate-level policy debater does that," and you pointed to a quote that wasn't about a statism critique (and may or may not be from a serious collegiate-level policy debater).

 

Is there any serious doubt that the nuclear reliance topic is the best marriage of k and policy?

 

I mean, Kato and Lifton and Schell are old news in this category.

My bad. I thought you picked up on the 'you have statism links' as the generic, policy debater response to 'you will always have your reps discourse, pyschoanalsis/Zizek/cap bad' links arguments they *often* make within the topic papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Crowe, this makes no sense. Ya, there will always be shitty generic K links, just like there will always be shitty generic policy links like politics, agent CPs, etc. But some topics have good K ground (I think this is true of almost all the proposed topics), others don't (ag. subsidies, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't think ag subsidies had good critical ground? CAFOs seemed to do the job well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many topical critical affs did you see last year? I basically saw 2: The CAFO animal ethics aff Emory MS and (sometimes) OU GW read, and biofuel aff's about US overconsumption/exploitation of the global South. Can you guess how many "critical" authors (in the sense used in debate) write about agricultural subsidies? Cause I only saw 1`all year (Shiva) who actually uses that phrase.

 

The specific example is irrelevant, anyways. The point is, some topics have terrible K ground, some have good K ground. "You get your generic cap/reps/discourse/whatever links" shouldn't be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvard BP, Berkeley BJ, North Texas MS, Kentucky GO, etc etc. Look, I wasn't saying "critical ground doesn't matter", I was saying that I personally thought that the critical ground on last year's topic was pretty good. It was interesting and it worked well for a lot of teams. Sorry if that wasn't your experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harvard BP, Berkeley BJ, North Texas MS, Kentucky GO, etc etc. Look, I wasn't saying "critical ground doesn't matter", I was saying that I personally thought that the critical ground on last year's topic was pretty good. It was interesting and it worked well for a lot of teams. Sorry if that wasn't your experience.

 

I don't think they really had a card contextualing agricultural subsidies as being a root of anything, really. N. Texas MS was just geneology, none specific to ag subsidies.

 

There's a difference between linking your author to the topic via tagline, and what the author is actually talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many topical critical affs did you see last year? Can you guess how many "critical" authors (in the sense used in debate) write about agricultural subsidies? Cause I only saw 1`all year (Shiva) who actually uses that phrase.

.

 

john beck. ag subs make the desert productive, man! :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harvard BP, Berkeley BJ, North Texas MS, Kentucky GO, etc etc. Look, I wasn't saying "critical ground doesn't matter", I was saying that I personally thought that the critical ground on last year's topic was pretty good. It was interesting and it worked well for a lot of teams. Sorry if that wasn't your experience.

 

I'm sorry, you're right, there were three critical topical affs read on that topic: There's also harvard RS's lunch programs aff.

 

And passing the plan 150 years ago and claiming impacts off the "angel of history" probably isn't topical, it's at least blatantly extra-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many topical critical affs did you see last year?

 

There was the Shiva monoculture aff and the biofuels global south aff that have already been mentioned. Spurlock already pointed out his own deserts aff. There were more CAFOs affs than just Emory MS's - Texas CM's animal liberation case and UTD's slaughterhouses aff immediately come to mind. Even some teams whose affs I wouldn't quite consider topical had cards talking about ag - Baylor CM's Kahn cards and West Georgia's Zerzan cards both talked substantively about agriculture. A couple people read Haraway cards that were about ag.

 

All those things seem to indicate "good K ground" to me. People wrote affs centered around predictable topic areas. Even the non-topical affs dealt with the topic a little bit - rather than there being a bunch of teams who just picked a random, unpredictable author, there were a lot of Ks of nature, technology, agriculture, animals, the food production system, agricultural markets, etc.

 

For comparison's sake, how many good policy affs do you think were there on ag? The list topic seemed to narrow the policy field to a few core cases (albeit with several mechanisms and advantage areas), and the dearth of good literature on areas like rice narrowed it even further. So, so what if all the topical K cases were CAFOS and biofuels? Didn't policy teams mostly read CAFOs, biofuels, and cotton anyways? I feel like the K ground was at least as diverse and substantive as the policy ground on ag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, there was a pretty good article based off of Badiou and Hallward that were talking specifically about rice subsidies in relation to the Via Campensina movement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like this coming topic will be hard to squirrel on.

 

What do you mean by hard to squirrel on? You mean finding small aff cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea small aff cases that won't link to the generic 'x camp sucks' lit or run into a hard time with a conditions cp. I could be wrong though cuz I've been researching pretty generically

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there's an author who says US agriculture is fucked up, that our relationship with nature is problematic, that anthropocentrism is oppressive, does not make a topical aff. There are authors on any general area. The concern with topical cases is policy action, that is: that there's a solvency advocate advocating topical action. Shiva is one example, Beck is another (although I doubt he advocates government action), and maybe Shree's article is a third. And how many topical aff's did that really create?

 

If your examples of topical affs are West Georgia's Zerzan aff, UCO's desert aff, Cook and McVey's play aff, or SF State's Haraway aff, that just proves my point.

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...