2010-2011 Topic Choices

[kerpen 533]

The NFHS has announced Latin America, China, Russia, UN Reform and military deployment are five suggested debate topics for 2010-2011.

 

PROBLEM AREA I: Latin America

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its trade promotion toward one or more Latin American countries.

 

PROBLEM AREA II: 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.

 

PROBLEM AREA III: Russia

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its military and/or economic engagement toward Russia.

 

PROBLEM AREA IV: United Nations

Resolved: The United Nations should substantially reform one or more of the following organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations World Food Programme.

 

PROBLEM AREA V: 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.

[NANANANA 66]

PROBLEM AREA IV: United Nations

Resolved: The United Nations should substantially reform one or more of the following organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations World Food Programme.

 

 

Is this right?

I guess the better question is, is this a first?

[mdawgig 249]

Yeah, they're all UN programs, so it makes sense that the UN could reform them.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

Is this right?

I guess the better question is, is this a first?

I can't recall any specific example, but I think that there have been a few non-USFG resolutions in the past. But you're right, very rare.

 

I support Latin America.

[jonathanrhs 17]

I remember seeing it on Resolved, I don't remember however if it was the 04-05 or 05-06 season. I'm pretty sure it was 04-05 because I think 05-06 was the topic with detaining without probable cause

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

I remember seeing it on Resolved, I don't remember however if it was the 04-05 or 05-06 season. I'm pretty sure it was 04-05 because I think 05-06 was the topic with detaining without probable cause

 

2004-05 was a UN topic, but the US federal government was the actor. (Increasing US support for UN programs.)

 

 

Edit: I found my old list of past topics. These are the ones I found where the resolution allows a non-US actor. So no topics in the modern era have had this feature...

 

1975-76: Resolved: That the development and allocation of scarce world resources should be controlled by an international organization.

 

1964-65: Resolved: That nuclear weapons should be controlled by an international organization.

 

1960-61: Resolved: That the United Nations should be significantly strengthened.

 

1952-53: Resolved: That the Atlantic pact nations should form a federal union.

 

1942-43: Resolved: That a federal world government should be established.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Fox On Socks

[TheScuSpeaks 3334]

Military deployment looks great. Latin America would allow access to one of the more interesting geographical locations that has been relatively ignored by the debate community. And, the UN topic would be cool to experiment with none USFG actors. So, with all that said, my guess is the community will choose either China or Russia.

 

I am mixed about those two, with the china one you can have economic engagement about the economy? You don't say. Otherwise, I prefer it slightly to Russia.

 

Oh well. I say go military deployment! Though I doubt it will stay around.

[Screech 195]

Military deployment, because it's the only one that's decently worded.

 

Also, heg debates.

[poor.yorick 90]

Military deployment, because it's the only one that's decently worded.

 

Also, heg debates.

The wordings could still change, so vote based on the topic area, not the specific wording.

[Ankur 2917]

Latin America would allow access to one of the more interesting geographical locations that has been relatively ignored by the debate community.

 

Ummm, I think you meant to say ignored by EVERY community. We have belittled, ignored, mistreated, exploited, and in general, screwed over Latin America more times than we can possibly count.

 

I love the L.A. topic but have a strong distaste for the deployment topic. On a technical level, I think that given the current climate, there will be a LOT of uniqueness issues which will be increasingly problematic. On a debate level, I think we get into this debate every year regardless of the topic through the various politics and IR debates. I want something new and refreshing. Hence, I like L.A. best.

[jemmyc 76]

I like the UN topic because I'm getting bored of the same old mishandled ASPEC/OSPEC debates on the USFG I see every year. I at least want to see teams come up with fresh new ways to mishandle T. It would also be interesting to see what the new spin on "normal means" would be.

[DebateScholar 12]

I think that the Military Deployment resolution is probably the best one, next in line being China, then Latin America, then Russia, then the United Nations.

 

I think the reason that Military deployment sparked my interest is that, I don't think that the American population seriously knows enough about the war over in the Middle East/South-Central Asian region. I think that what we do have, however, is alot of biased education, and not enough of a critical analysis of the controversy, which is probably the thing that fuels so much American Nationalism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that what we are fighting for is (sort of) a good cause, but this will have a large amount of literature on the Critical side of the debate as well as the political side.

 

A large education on al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., will make this resolution worth it. I seriously would like to learn more on this, and that may just be me, but there is probably a crap load more of literature on this topic than many others.

 

It is also much more revolutionary, per se, part in because alot of us think that we should not reduce military deployment, and that the terrorists are always the "bad guys", and you will hear alot of people saying stuff like "the only good muslim is a dead one." We will probably come to gain an understanding of why they do what they do, and not just because they are blood thirsty Islams who will try and dictate the world.

 

I am not sure if any of you have checked out the pdf's that are on the NFHS website, but the military one impresses me alot. There is just so much you could do, and I can already think of a few good affirmatives for it too. Disadvantages would be constantly made, kritiks will have alot of good otherization arguments, objectivism, Lacan/Zizek, Representations, CRT, CLS, Libertarianism, Standpoint/Epistemology, etc.

[Publius 76]

I think that the Military Deployment resolution is probably the best one, next in line being China, then Latin America, then Russia, then the United Nations.

 

I think the reason that Military deployment sparked my interest is that, I don't think that the American population seriously knows enough about the war over in the Middle East/South-Central Asian region. I think that what we do have, however, is alot of biased education, and not enough of a critical analysis of the controversy, which is probably the thing that fuels so much American Nationalism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that what we are fighting for is (sort of) a good cause, but this will have a large amount of literature on the Critical side of the debate as well as the political side.

 

A large education on al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., will make this resolution worth it. I seriously would like to learn more on this, and that may just be me, but there is probably a crap load more of literature on this topic than many others.

 

It is also much more revolutionary, per se, part in because alot of us think that we should not reduce military deployment, and that the terrorists are always the "bad guys", and you will hear alot of people saying stuff like "the only good muslim is a dead one." We will probably come to gain an understanding of why they do what they do, and not just because they are blood thirsty Islams who will try and dictate the world.

 

I am not sure if any of you have checked out the pdf's that are on the NFHS website, but the military one impresses me alot. There is just so much you could do, and I can already think of a few good affirmatives for it too. Disadvantages would be constantly made, kritiks will have alot of good otherization arguments, objectivism, Lacan/Zizek, Representations, CRT, CLS, Libertarianism, Standpoint/Epistemology, etc.

 

QFA

[mdawgig 249]

I voted for UN for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Non-USFG actor = a nice change. No more USFG spending DAs, NO MORE F22 TRADE-OFF!

 

2. Personally, I think Latin America is just a boring topic. Also, it says "trade promotion," meaning that no trade actually has to increase, just the promotion for trade. Dumb wording, dumb topic.

 

3. China + Russia - We debate this crap every year anyways. I mean, seriously, how many China DAs were there for the Africa topic? How many Federalism files this year talk about Russian federalism? Do you remember the Russia DAs last year? Just three examples of the obviously many, many more.

 

4. Military deployment - Again, we talk about the military every year anyways. We don't need education in this area anyways. You'll inevitably get 3 years of education on this topic no matter what.

[Screech 195]

The wordings could still change, so vote based on the topic area, not the specific wording.

Alright, good call. I guess I prefer Latin America, because we DO tend to ignore it. It'd be sweet to hear about the B of BRIC. Plus, Brazil just got the Rio Olympics, which is the ONLY TIME any country in the Southern Hemisphere has gotten the games (outside of Australia, which has gotten them twice). I think they see it (rightfully) as their coming out party.

I still like military deployment, but all the other ones are either over-covered or just nonsensical (the UN topic).

 

This is definitely contingent on them getting a better wording though. Why can't the NFHS be more transparent?

[joshtheguitarfreak 10]

The wordings could still change, so vote based on the topic area, not the specific wording.

This is absolutely correct. The UN topic wont be worded that way...read the papers:

 

1. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

active participation in one or more of the following United Nations

organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), World Food Program (WFP).

2. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

non-monetary support to one or more of the following United Nations

organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), World Food Program (WFP).

3. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

active participation in the United Nations.

4. That the United States Federal Government should establish a policy

substantially changing its cooperation with the United Nations.

5. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

participation in the United Nations.

6. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

non-monetary participation in the United Nations.

7. That the United States Federal Government should establish a policy to

substantially increase its non-monetary support and participation in the

United Nations.

 

I voted for the UN since Im tired of 2 years of domestic policy in a row.

[Publius 76]

This is absolutely correct. The UN topic wont be worded that way...read the papers:

 

1. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

active participation in one or more of the following United Nations

organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), World Food Program (WFP).

2. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

non-monetary support to one or more of the following United Nations

organizations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), World Food Program (WFP).

3. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

active participation in the United Nations.

4. That the United States Federal Government should establish a policy

substantially changing its cooperation with the United Nations.

5. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

participation in the United Nations.

6. That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its

non-monetary participation in the United Nations.

7. That the United States Federal Government should establish a policy to

substantially increase its non-monetary support and participation in the

United Nations.

 

I voted for the UN since Im tired of 2 years of domestic policy in a row.

 

These are all foreign topics.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

I voted for the UN since Im tired of 2 years of domestic policy in a row.

Because domestic topics are generally chosen heavily in the voting, the NFHS mandates that every third year, all of the topic choices are international/foreign policy. This is one of those years.

[Drew2010 55]

The wordings are final unless a situation occurs that requires the committee to reword them, which only happens in very rare occassions. It has only happened once in the past 10-15 years.

 

This is from a coach who was actually at the topic selection conference that made these decisions.

 

And yes, the UN topic will be worded that way. They decided that it would be a nice change. It would make you get creative for your politics DAs.. And on CPs cause states won't solve.

[Publius 76]

The wordings are final unless a situation occurs that requires the committee to reword them, which only happens in very rare occassions. It has only happened once in the past 10-15 years.

 

This is from a coach who was actually at the topic selection conference that made these decisions.

 

And yes, the UN topic will be worded that way. They decided that it would be a nice change. It would make you get creative for your politics DAs.. And on CPs cause states won't solve.

 

Some teams would say when there is a will, there is a way. I have never run States CP and I like this topic wording.

[THodgman 179]

I'll echo that; there are a few reasons the Latin America topic is awesome:

 

Trade is a very deep topic - there is a lot of literature that goes both ways. While it is focus, there is also a lot of breadth in the issues it affects - economics, conflict, human rights, environment, and more.

 

Not only that, but its not just a two-sided debate either. There'd be a lot of different ways to go about trade promotion - free vs. fair, bilateral vs. multilateral - there would probably be a lot of soild topic counterplans. The unique position of the United States with regard to Latin America probably will mean that international counterplans, while still present, will be less useful overall (IE, it won't be impossible to find a US key warrant)

 

Also, this is the last time similar resolutions were debated:

Military - 3 years ago

UN - 5 years ago

Russia - 10 years ago

China - 13 years ago

Latin America - 20 years ago

 

Military, China, and Russia are researched tons, even on domestic topics. Latin America is usually a very small focus, and there is a wealth of new literature which could be researched on it.

 

Latin America is also very timely - recent very large increases in debt, changes in drug policy, and the coup in Honduras all make it an especially pertinent issue.

 

Re-posted since this is actually getting discussed here now

[Publius 76]

 

I'll echo that; there are a few reasons the Latin America topic is awesome:

 

Trade is a very deep topic - there is a lot of literature that goes both ways. While it is focus, there is also a lot of breadth in the issues it affects - economics, conflict, human rights, environment, and more.

 

Not only that, but its not just a two-sided debate either. There'd be a lot of different ways to go about trade promotion - free vs. fair, bilateral vs. multilateral - there would probably be a lot of soild topic counterplans. The unique position of the United States with regard to Latin America probably will mean that international counterplans, while still present, will be less useful overall (IE, it won't be impossible to find a US key warrant)

 

Also, this is the last time similar resolutions were debated:

Military - 3 years ago

UN - 5 years ago

Russia - 10 years ago

China - 13 years ago

Latin America - 20 years ago

 

Military, China, and Russia are researched tons, even on domestic topics. Latin America is usually a very small focus, and there is a wealth of new literature which could be researched on it.

 

Latin America is also very timely - recent very large increases in debt, changes in drug policy, and the coup in Honduras all make it an especially pertinent issue.

 

Re-posted since this is actually getting discussed here now

 

But when was the last resolution that the military was forced to reduce deployment/strategic initiatives? 2001 with the WMD topic. It would be an interesting turn to see the aff have to argue decreased deployment instead of building the military.

[Publius 76]

I will not mourn the loss of the (quasi)effective states cp.

[Nomaz 30]

PROBLEM AREA III: Russia

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its military and/or economic engagement toward Russia.

 

Engagement: an encounter, conflict, or battle

dictionary.com

 

Oh joy rapture.

[Danny Tanner 716]

I like problem areas 1 and 5.