Jump to content
Chaos

Problem With La Resolution?

Recommended Posts

I haven't put too much thought into it yet, but the resolution says that the USFG needs to increase its economic engagement with Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela. Are there some issues that arise with only allowing cases that don't involve the free market? It's sort of hard to argue that miscellaneous private businesses based in the USA are owned by the federal government, so I don't see a very defensible alternative. There's a solid textual basis for this interpretation, with some good limits arguments to accompany it, so I think this might be a problem. If this problem is going to be solved, it'll be with a definition of "its economic engagement", I guess. But I can't think of exactly how that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only problem with this resolution is the lack of any access to big impacts for policy-style debaters. I mean you could probably spin a key to us econ or key to world econ scenario but I doubt the cards will be particularly good. I think its going to be more of a k based topic

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the topic only requires that the USFG take an action that increases the engagement between its economy and the economy of Mexico/Venezuela/Cuba. It really only makes sense for it to refer to the US economy, which is commonly used in the literature. I can't imagine there's a feasible lit base for "its [economy]" to refer to solely government markets, at least in the context of economic engagement with the topic countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this.... Removing the Cuban embargo is one of the affs that people have mentioned could be run next year. But once the embargo's removed, the USFG isn't going to be economically engaged, it'll be private companies. Will it just be "The norm" to ignore "its" in the resolution, and have affs that increase economic engagement between the U.S. economy and the other economies? 

 

Is there anything considered as The USFGs economic engagement? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel like this is really just going to come down to the def. of economic engagement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel like this is really just going to come down to the def. of economic engagement

Agreed.  T "Or" might come up a few times, and "with" will too.  But, this won't have the same variety of T that this topic had.  RIP TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCURE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  T "Or" might come up a few times, and "with" will too.  But, this won't have the same variety of T that this topic had.  RIP TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCURE.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it "Towards", not "With" ? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it "Towards", not "With" ?

I think you're right. My mistake. Lol, towards gives so much k ground x)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  RIP TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCURE.

sniff.... my novice topic.... gone forever :(

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a rough shell. Someone answer it, please.

1. Interpretation - "its" attributes possession.

Dictionary.com 13 // I'm too lazy to write a real citation // http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its


the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective): The book has lost its jacket. I'm sorry about its being so late.


2. Violation - the affirmative expands commercial markets, not USFG owned ones.

3. Standards -
A. Predictability - the text is the only inherent link to the resolution, the only nonsubjective way to evaluate the meaning of the topic. Predictability is key to education and fairness because it's a prerequisite for balanced clash since preparation is key to effective debating.
B. Limits - there's a myriad of various commercial markets the affirmative can engage with, they justify making any form of economic engagement topical. Affirmatives can always leverage topicality evidence specific to their case and produce higher quality literature on issues of education and predictability, along with counterinterpretations set up to edge out negative T offense while still allowing "just" their case - you have to hold the line by preventing any commercial market cases at all or the negative will be overwhelmed.

4. Voter for fairness and education.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of "its" thats kind of an effects interpretation.

 

More importantly "its" modifies trade policies. It doesn't modify non-mentioned commercial trade policies. They don't probably even refer to their policies as trade policies....but negotiated contracts for goods/services, etc...

 

This interp kills the resolution. Its not one thats good for debate or fairness or education or anything else.

 

There is zero literature for your resolution. Or at least that literature sucks and its would be terrible for neg ground anyway.

 

I think the only problem with this resolution is the lack of any access to big impacts for policy-style debaters.

I think after camp this may be less of an issue. It will probably make politics a more competitive argument than it would otherwise be.

 

People may also have to rely on some shabby internal links to modeling....to access warming.

 

It may also be the case that this will lead to better debates....people will pay far more attention to the degree of link (or access) than perhaps in the past.

 

Remember, increase economic growth theoretically always has a risk of accessing space-type impacts.

 

• US economy

• US changes in perception regarding its latin american policy, leadership, & hege

• US changes in perception regarding its trade posture (free trade/globalization)

 

Given those considerations--I don't think big impacts will be such a big deal (not perhaps the same as recent resolutions, but not small per se).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sniff.... my novice topic.... gone forever :(

I feel you man, novice year has been the best :sob:.  We shall not forget thee! :Bow

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh...that feeling when you consolidate all your trans. infra. files into one massive 2012-2013 debate file. RIP

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How? 

Gift, Imperialism (I would guess)

 

There might even be some word PIC/PIKs out of towards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory: the resolution is interesting. Because the US is capitalist, the government doesn't control its businesses behavior directly.

 

 

I can't figure out if you think this is a topicality question or a solvency question.  I will answer both claims:

 

This is hardly an indict of the resolution.  There is historical evidence on this question.  Economic engagement = X amount of change (economically in millions or billions of dollars).

 

How much of it will be specific to Latin America and/or the specific type of reform involved may be up for debate (or rather will vary on a case by case basis--based on the nature of literature base).

 

Second, if you look at the list of the mechanisms--its very specific about the types of impacts the government can have on business policy.  I think it will radically shift your opinion on this topic--especially as you read more of the issue on the topic.

 

Plus, affirmative literature (at least the most specific solvency) will be assumptive of the strengths and limits of those policies.  Thats the world they deal in every day.  Buchards list unpacks what some of those specific topical mechanisms are which are on face "economic engagement"

http://bauscharddebate.com/2013/03/defining-economic-engagement/

 

 

Third, US economic engagement happens on multiple levels:

1. The US government makes a change and spends say $50 million or so on goods and services that are used to make the country better.  According to some facts from CATO 90% of that is US based (a pre-2000 report on US development aid).  Although the percentages aren't all that important.  This part of the policy gives the US direct control.

2. More follow on engagement due to change in policy.  Or post the change--the government in the other country has more money to spend.

3. There may be conditions applied.  Usually its on our side I would presume, but it may be on the other as well.  (with these affs this may be less relevant).  it seems like the equivalent of a rider disad sorta.  Normal means is X conditions.  But these will likely be bunk assertions--for specificity & context specific reasons.

 

These mechanisms give us direct control over policy.  

 

Plus, businesses don't like disorder, post the plan, the US establishing a policy probably creates order and stability to a relationship.  The nature of capitalist companies is they seek out economic advantages--the change in the political situation & the increase in ties--will likely create less uncertainty & less stability--making US trade more likely.

 

And even if you prove the resolution has a flaw--in terms of how policy debate typically relates to resolutions, thats not really the Affirmatives fault. 

 

Economic engagement will likely be pretty much on face given the very specific list of policies that are contained in the Stefan Buchard list of areas and engagement mechanisms.  Therefore with most affirmatives, the will almost always be mandating a particular policy change thats intrinsically economic in nature.  

 

And here's evidence from Hillary Clinton from November '12:

 

 

The third major area of focus for economic statecraft is commercial diplomacy that boosts U.S. exports, opens new markets, and levels the playing field for American businesses. Let me hasten to say this is not just about American prosperity. Although, as you might guess, as the American Secretary of State, that ranks very high on my list of priorities. That is always our goal. But this is about finding more opportunities for all of us to prosper together. It's about helping the next wave of emerging economies achieve the same kind of growth that Singapore has enjoyed. It's about rebalancing the global economy so Americans export more, Asians import more, and we avoid financial crises and build middle classes.

So, the United States is stepping up our game, using our network of more than 270 embassies and consulates to advocate for American firms, and help achieve President Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports in 5 years. With 95 percent of the world's customers living beyond our own borders, this has become an economic imperative. So our diplomats are working to make it easier for U.S. businesses to find answers and get advice about navigating markets. We're helping them connect with foreign partners and compete for contracts. And whenever a U.S. Government official travels overseas now, we try to include business events on our schedules. In fact, later today I will visit a General Electric aviation facility here in Singapore.

We are sending more trade missions, like the one I mentioned to Burma. And this summer I led the first delegation of American CEOs to the U.S.-ASEAN Business Forum in Cambodia. Three heads of state and more than a dozen key ministers were eager to engage with them. Back in Washington, we have convened conferences bringing together business leaders and government officials from more than 100 countries. We're proud to go to bat for the Boeings and Chevrons and General Motors and so many others. But we're also working to help industries large and small that have not been traditional exporters. Ultimately, this effort is more than hooking a big fish here and there. We want every company -- American, Singaporean, or any other -- to have that level playing field and a chance to compete on the merits. That is a recipe for shared prosperity.

 

 

 

And more evidence from Hillary Clinton, same cite, source below:

 

Yet in too many places businesses trying to break into markets face resistance, including trade barriers that are going up not along national borders, but behind them. And these obstacles stem from political choices, not market forces. And it will take serious and sustained diplomacy to address them. Wherever companies face discrimination, the United States will stand up for the rules of an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system, and we expect all like-minded economies to share that responsibility.

Now, recently we saw a break-through when India retooled its policy on foreign direct investment. Their old rules barred companies that carry multiple brands in one store -- like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, or similar foreign companies -- from doing retail business in the Indian market. That limited competition. But, more than that, it prevented the kind of knowledge transfer and supply chain modernization that India needs. So we and -- I should note -- other countries, as well, raised this issue with India's leaders at the highest level for years. And we are pleased that Delhi has now agreed to loosen its restrictions.

 

 

(Source: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/200664.htm  )

 

 

* I apologize if any of the above is unclear.

** For debaters...you might check my earlier post on this thread regarding this issue.  I seem to remember doing a decent job handing it then as now.

 

I would also point out that this thread attempts to address the issue (my first response is a misunderstanding of what Teja is calling object fiat.....my second I think answers it and I'm sure others do:

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/55012-object-fiat/

 

 

But I think collectively that the question is answered.  The USFG has a number of policy levers and they are incentives for action.  

1. Those incentives include lowering trade barriers & creating an environment condusive for economic engagement.

2. Also the policy itself

3. There will be predictive economic evidence based on empirical ev. with other countries.  The above evidence is the tip of the iceberg.

 

I can't stress enough how the specificity issue will also answer it back.  This specifies the mechanisms:

http://bauscharddebate.com/2013/03/defining-economic-engagement/

 

* You should bookmark & print out that Buchard article.  Its incredibly key to the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a topicality issue, based on the fact that "its economic engagement" never seems to be defined in the way that the topic paper discussed it. Now, however, I think that the resolution can be accurately grammatically interpreted as referring to "its engagement (of an economic type)" which I feel will work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only problem with this resolution is the lack of any access to big impacts for policy-style debaters. I mean you could probably spin a key to us econ or key to world econ scenario but I doubt the cards will be particularly good. I think its going to be more of a k based topic

 

 

I think the topic only requires that the USFG take an action that increases the engagement between its economy and the economy of Mexico/Venezuela/Cuba. It really only makes sense for it to refer to the US economy, which is commonly used in the literature. I can't imagine there's a feasible lit base for "its [economy]" to refer to solely government markets, at least in the context of economic engagement with the topic countries.

 

Does this not mean that within the plan you also must specify you will engage economically with the country versus only stating you are lifting the embargo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this not mean that within the plan you also must specify you will engage economically with the country versus only stating you are lifting the embargo?

Hence the stock-policy debaters earn their T ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the stock-policy debaters earn their T ground

Couldn't one argue that lifting the embargo itself is engaging economically? And if so, how?

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...