Jump to content
normsy

Topic Selection Committee

Recommended Posts

I would like to see a resolution about information technology.

 

Also, oceans is lame.

Edited by Asherred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jut a curious question, with the wording of the oceans resolution, would the plan have to involve:

a. All of Earth's oceans

b. 1 or more of Earth's oceans

c. more than 1 of Earth's oceans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oceans sounds kind of fun, except no one is going to do the research to make it really interesting, which will leave me crying all year. Seriously, if I hear a nuclear war impact on the Aff, you're doing it wrong. Well, I know what case I want to help my debaters write for this topic, and it will involve zero IR, war-related, heg, or economy advantages, and a double-barreled framework covering role of the ballot and evidential standards. The fact that most standard Ks won't link, and the few that do will be pre-spiked by framework, is a bonus. Bwahahaha.

 

Middle East looks too similar to this year. Yeah, its different countries, but its going to be the same Ks, the same DAs (pretty much), and the same CPs (pretty much). The case space is a little larger (just engagement, doesn't need to be economic), and the countries are less stupid (Cuba with 1 case and VZ with basically no cases, yay - admittedly VZ imploded after the topic was decided, so that was hardly the framers fault), but still, pretty much the same topic. There might be 'exciting' new Affs, but that doesn't mean negative will do anything interesting.

 

So, I'm totally pulling for Oceans. When people do it right, it'll be very divergent from most years and a lot less stale. Of course, people are going to do it wrong, but that's okay, that means everyone will be prepping for the wrong things, even without writing a squirrely case. =)

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, if I hear a nuclear war impact on the Aff, you're doing it wrong. 

 

I would think that if the aff could access a good nuclear war impact on the oceans topic, they would be doing something right.

 

 

a double-barreled framework covering role of the ballot and evidential standards. The fact that most standard Ks won't link, and the few that do will be pre-spiked by framework, is a bonus.

 

I would also think that generic Ks would link to the aff, and that the neg could read a short fw argument in the 1NC.

 

 

Middle East looks too similar to this year. Yeah, its different countries, but its going to be the same Ks, the same DAs (pretty much), and the same CPs (pretty much).

 

Not really.

 

DA Ground:

Good Democracy Files

CMR

Oil

Iran Stuff

Warfighting/Terror

Syria

Bahrain

Israel-Palestine

Jordan Stability

Russian Arms Sales

Aid Tradeoff/ESF

Spending

Military Tradeoff

Saudi Arabia

China

UN Cred

NATO

 

CP Ground:

Credibility

NMS

GDPR

Iran Nuclear Deal

Israel Diplomacy

National Guard

Middle East Foundation

Egypt Elections

Saudi HR or Oil

Gifts

Turkey (Int'l Actor)

UN

NATO

EU (Int'l Actor)

Private Aid

 

K Ground:

Same every year, but they want the heart of the topic to not be Neolib

 

The problem with the Middle East topic is DA uniqueness, not being "too similar to this year"

 

 

When people do it right, it'll be very divergent from most years and a lot less stale.

 

That's because there's zero neg ground besides terrible BioD disads, and every aff will be small and not link to BioD disads anyways

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jut a curious question, with the wording of the oceans resolution, would the plan have to involve:

a. All of Earth's oceans

b. 1 or more of Earth's oceans

c. more than 1 of Earth's oceans

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

 

The "problem" you point out with this resolution is essentially the same one that exists with the current college rez:

 

RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

 

While both resolutions probably should have made use of the phrase "one or more", only the most absurdly literal interpretation of each resolution would force the affirmative to deal with multiple oceans (or restrictions). I feel like it would be pretty easy for the aff to win that the lit base for multi-ocean affs is unreasonably small. Unfortunately, the "T-plural" argument does exist; observe this shell from the K-State wiki:

 

A. INTERP AND VIOLATION: [“restrictions†on] is a plural and countable noun – plan effects a single restriction, which is sub-topical.

http://www. macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/restriction

[COUNTABLE] [OFTEN PLURAL] a rule, action, or situation that limits or controls someone or something

trade/travel/speed/parking restrictions

restriction on: The county faces restrictions on the use of water for irrigating crops.

impose/place restrictions (on): The judge had imposed further restrictions on the reporting of the case.

lift/remove restrictions (on): We are asking the government to lift all restrictions on food shipments.

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of restriction

a.

[uNCOUNTABLE] the act of limiting or controlling someone or something

The restriction of press freedom is seen as an abuse of human rights.

B. VOTE NEG:

1. Jurisdiction – grammar delineates the scope of the ballot – T is a rule and outweighs everything – hasty generalizations do not suffice

2. Neg ground – PICs with topic lit are hardwired into the resolution – our standard is also key to neg ‘link uniqueness’

3. Aff limits – abstract treatment of plural nouns cannot preserve a concrete cap on total plans, only count-ability begets a stable case list and aff mechanisms

 

I'm hoping anthro will be big next year - tired of ks of economics.

 

Yeah, I feel like an Oceans topic would lead to a fair increase in the number of teams running anthro.

Edited by Hartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oceans would definitely be better.  Though in general I'm a bigger fine of IR (I just love the subject) the mid-east topic is way to simliar to this years.  I'm sure there would still be plenty of Cap (exploiting the Earth's oceans anyone) but even Cap would be more anthro oriented it definitely would have a ton of neg ground for Heidegger and anthro K's.  I imagine a lot of affs will be pretty similar in layout to the icebreakers aff from last year (and we could even see a return of that aff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote is for oceans, the variety and how unique each case can/will be will make for a fun debate year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed my mind, Middle East is too similar to this year's rez. Oceans would open up creativity and people would have to think on their feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OCEANS OCEANS OCEANS!

 

Seriously, though, the sheer amount of DA's that can link to the Middle East ANY year is astronomical. To have an entire debate YEAR focused on the Middle East would be very easy (at least for me: lots of the research would have been done already), but ultimately very boring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What advantage ground would there even be for oceans besides economy and bio-d? My vote would be for Middle East.

Edited by USMessi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how they had to add "Earth's oceans" to the resolution, knowing that a resolution sans "Earth" would result in debaters running stuff about Europa's oceans, exoplanet oceans, etc. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neg Ground:

Econ arguments

Biodiversity DAs (probably like dozens of specific ones eg. Phytoplankton, Corals, Specific Hotspots, specific species, etc.)

Warming DA

Naval Tech Prolif DA (not sure the lit exists, but it would be cool for a "ocean tech spills over to military, that's bad" argument)

International Waters Intrusion DA (think about China's recent ADIZ, international water claims, Arctic claims, etc)

Spending DA (hell yeah)

Plan makes Atlantis mad = world war 3 DA

Pacific Rim Wormhole/Kaiju DA. 

On that note, a "develop the Jaeger program" AFF would be really cool...

 

Other:

LOST CP for the n-th year in a row

International Actor CPs will be huge

Agent CPs

All of the environment Ks

T - Resolved

 

Also, every year, there's some government definition of the major words in the resolution that everyone uses. This year, it's the State Department card. Last year was the Chamber of Commerce card. I did a preliminary search of some terms, and I guarantee these are going to be the big definitional cards next year:

 

Development: 

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=23z

At Rio+20, Member States stressed the importance of “the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas and of their resources for sustainable development, including through their contributions to poverty eradication, sustained economic growth, food security and creation of sustainable livelihoods and decent work, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and the marine environment and addressing the impacts of climate changeâ€. Oceans, seas and coastal areas form an integrated and essential component of the Earth’s ecosystem and are critical to sustainable development. They cover more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface and contain 97% of the planet’s water. Oceans contribute to poverty eradication by creating sustainable livelihoods and decent work. Over three billion people depend on marine and coastal resources for their livelihoods. In addition, oceans are crucial for global food security and human health. They are also the primary regulator of the global climate, an important sink for greenhouse gases and they provide us with water and the oxygen we breathe. Finally, oceans host huge reservoirs of biodiversity Yet, there are increasing, complex challenges in preserving and maintaining healthy, resilient and productive oceans for the prosperity of present and future generations. Ensuring healthy and productive oceans is therefore crucial for achieving sustainable development.

 

 

Exploration:

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/history/history_oe.htmNOAA’s scientific ocean exploration has developed around the following themes: (1) systematic mapping of the sea floor and related geologic and geophysical parameters; (2) the search for creatures that live within the sea and the study of their interrelationships; (3) the systematic study of local and planetary tides and currents; (4) the struggle for humankind to work, observe, and live within the sea; (5) the search for understanding of the dynamic interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere that drive the great climatic systems; (6) the study of the chemical composition of the sea; and (7) penetration of the sea floor by mechanical and acoustical means in order to comprehend the geology, geophysics, geochemistry, and past history of our planet. An eighth theme, the search for sea-floor cultural artifacts and heritage sites, has matured as sea-floor mapping, remote sensing systems, and various other technologies have become more sophisticated.

Edited by ktg9616
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What advantage ground would there even be for oceans besides economy and bio-d? My vote would be for Middle East.

 

Surprisingly, a large amount. Scientific advancement (US military hegemony link) (alt energy link), an oil spills case could potentially have a Middle Eastern relations link, climate change (there ARE things in the ocean that absorb CO2).... The list goes on and on. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how they had to add "Earth's oceans" to the resolution, knowing that a resolution sans "Earth" would result in debaters running stuff about Europa's oceans, exoplanet oceans, etc. 

 

Erm... I may have already cut T for Europa's oceans ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oceans.

 

T oceans will be big, defining what is within the jurisdiction of "oceans" (e.g. Is the Gulf of Mexico in the Atlantic Ocean). Or maybe not, just a thought.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×