Jump to content
RoyersMWD

Nebraska 09-10

Recommended Posts

we wouldn't use a special designation like an asterisk to indicate something that is true of every tournament we attend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up guys - look for a slightly larger policy pool at the West tournament - we've got entries from Valley, Indianola, and CR Wash. A little regional variety to mix things up it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me not to go home that weekend if the Kearney tournament is pants-optional. Holy shit that mental image is upsetting.

 

In other news, I'm officially transferring to UNL next semester and am going to be looking for a job. If anyone is in the market for an assistant coach, hit me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you just register yourself for an account on the wiki, which is free, you can post and update your own info without going through batterman. it's faster, and ultimately more convenient for everyone including you. there are instructions on the front page under something like "how to use the wiki".

 

that said, i'm sure i speak for everyone in thanking you for posting. i'm sure you'll find the wiki to be a tremendous resource. i know we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's talk the options for next year.

 

Option 1: Military Deployment

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

 

Option 2: China

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, economy, environment.

 

Is it just me - or is the second option horribly worded? How does the US increase its economic engagement on the issue of economy? How is that really distinct from trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is with the "in one or more of the following" wording all about? I think that seems like really poor wording for grounds/limits debate.

 

With that being said, I'm not too keen on either resolution. It seems that the military deployment res would be interesting, but pretty limited for affirmative cases.

 

The China resolution seems like a much more realistic option. I haven't thought about it much, but I would guess that there would be a lot more options for the affirmative and negative with this resolution. I know that isn't really much of a justification for the China resolution....I just don't see the Military Deployment resolution really "going anywhere."

Edited by BrentK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is with the "in one or more of the following" wording all about? I think that seems like really poor wording for grounds/limits debate.

 

This reminds me of the National Service topic where the resolution said "Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following . . ."

 

There really wasn't a lot of debate over that part of the resolution. That might be because of the extreme prevalence of the 'increasing' debate.

 

I'm not a big fan of either topic, though military deployment seems a bit better. I'm mystified at the China one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is with the "in one or more of the following" wording all about? I think that seems like really poor wording for grounds/limits debate.

 

With that being said, I'm not too keen on either resolution. It seems that the military deployment res would be interesting, but pretty limited for affirmative cases.

 

The China resolution seems like a much more realistic option. I haven't thought about it much, but I would guess that there would be a lot more options for the affirmative and negative with this resolution. I know that isn't really much of a justification for the China resolution....I just don't see the Military Deployment resolution really "going anywhere."

 

I think its an example of high school debate trying to mirror college debate. Lots of college resolutions (2 out of the last 3) have "one or more of the following" clauses.

 

Also, its supposed to keep the topic more narrowly focused and decrease the amount of vagueness about what is and is not topical, I guess. Whether or not it actually does either of those things is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig the topical limitations of the deployment resolution. I really hope it wins out. I also agree with Tim that China is poorly worded. I'll illustrate one thing I don't like about that wording:

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its ECONOMIC engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, ECONOMY, environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military topic covers a lot of ground that past resolutions have not hit except peripherally. Iraq and Afghanistan in particular are ridiculously timely and would have a huge literature base. It also is the first topic in a long time that has very good DA ground outside of econ, politics and trade-off.

 

China was debated when I was a freshman (so Dana and I are the only ones still around from that era) but that was BG (before google) so the literature base was much more limited. I think you'll end up seeing a lot of very small cases that claim and economy advantage claiming to be topical because they have an economic intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, seeing these resolutions kind of makes me happy I'll be graduating and won't have to deal with them. The China topic is atrociously worded,and the military topic, by asking to decrease troop involvement seems like it will either really overlimit the resolution to a few specific plans, or just beg teams to run really effectually/extra topical affirmatives.

 

However, I will laugh incredibly hard when I see "Topicality: Decrease is not the addition of a barrier!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all, i sort of agree that china could be reworded but i don't think its as broken as everyone else seems to. essentially my interpretation, which is crafted in an explicit attempt to make the resolution make sense, would be that "economic engagement" refers to the type of tactic the US (the plan) would deploy in addressing an issue in china. so for example one topical form of economic engagement would be sanctions. this makes the topic interesting because there are no doubt positive and negative economic inducements. the three areas after the colon then become the targets of those economic engagements. in other words, those are the areas in chinese policy you are trying to get adressed. maybe you want china stop manipulating currency, so you sanction them. that'd be economic engagement on the economy, vrs sanctioning them to stop polluting or whatever. tim's right that there is significant overlap in the areas; a case that engaged china to stop cole mining would arguably be all three areas. i'm not sure that that is terribly important to the topicality debate though, especially since the aff is allowed to be in one or more of the areas. you just have to be ready to win on T that the case isn't any of those areas. perhaps thats an undue burden making the resolution fairly large. whatever. predictions of topic size always end up being screwed by the way the camp system distorts the topic anyway.

 

that said, i like military deployment. i think it allows a lot of room for interesting and diverse affirmatives (certainly we have different kinds of military and police presences. consider the difference between our military role in afghanistan and our that in japan and if the prevalence of the Heg CP has taught us anything it should be that there are a variety of ways to effect military presences. consider also that military doesn't necessarily just means troops. TNWs anyone? landmines?) conversely, like wike said, all those regions have complicated geopolitical and economic situations that our military is entangled in meaning the negative should have specific disadvantage and CP ground (wike will have a field day, those of you who read plans are fucked).

 

[nothing was said about K ground on either topic because i think there's a huge amount of ground on both of them. between postcolonialism, and critiques of realism/heg, and the economic side of china, not to mention the various racial elements, i think we all know the crazies will do just fine]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the fuck is a resolution. and why do i care

 

the resolution is that bullshit thing they try to make you defend with their T arguments ... or so I have been told.

Edited by Wilcox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the resultbof the finals round at millard west? I have lost my laptop charger at millard west so if anyone finds one it is prlly mine...

Thanks

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the fuck is a resolution. and why do i care

 

The resolution is something that used to dictate what the debate was about. Anymore though its really just for show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the resultbof the finals round at millard west? I have lost my laptop charger at millard west so if anyone finds one it is prlly mine...

Thanks

Chris

 

tyler and connor beat indianola, who made a damn impressive showing at the whole tournament. meurrens, litherland, and aaron thomas were the judges. i think it was a 2-1, but i don't remember who sat. probably brad. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradley did not sit on this one...Lith did. I firmly agree on sometimes having to sacrifice Brad. God knows we have done it more than he or I would like. In this case, and I will say it is a pretty rare one, we did our best to adapt. Brad paid us off with a big win over a good team. Congrats to Indianola on a good run. I am sure they will be ready to get back to their old partnership and make another deep run at Dowling. Good luck on getting those bids guys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to Dowling? Lincoln High? I suspect that Lincoln High might only be Fremont and Norfolk. Or just Fremont if Norfolk goes down in flames over the next couple of days. :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Westside is sending one varsity policy team to Dowling, and two to Lincoln High

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...