Jump to content

gbsdebate

Member
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by gbsdebate

  1. The National Debate Coaches Association is very pleased to announce a new project that provides open access to hundreds of summer institute files. We have partnered with 17 different institutes to provide open access to institute files to any interested coach or student. There is no catch or hidden strings... . The NDCA would like to thank the Institutes that have partnered with us in this resource project: Baylor University Dartmouth College Gonzaga University Miami (OH) University Michigan State University Missouri State University Northwestern University Stanford University of California - Berkeley University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Michigan University of Missouri – Kansas City University of Richmond University of North Texas Whitman - Policy Whitman - LD Right now, the project has over 560 files that are available for download for anyone that is interested. We wanted to make this project available as quickly as possible. We will continually be adding files to this project - many of the institutes are in the midst of sending their files to the NDCA for uploading to our hosting server. Please feel free to forward this to anyone - our intent is to provide a mechanism of resource equity for programs throughout the nation. My apologies if you receive this more than once as I merge multiple address books and post on multiple listservs. To access this open access site, please visit our new website at http://ndca.debateteams.net - check out the "Announcements" box on the homepage for instructions. The password is all lower case. It is case sensitive. When you get to the directed server that the NDCA website directs you to, please click on “Projects and Files” which is 1/3 of the way down the page. Each institute represents a separate “project”. The number of files uploaded for each institute is listed in parentheses. Just click on an Institute to see a list of files to download! If you are interested in becoming an NDCA member, annual dues are only $25.00. To pay by check, please send $25.00 (check made out to the NDCA) to Nicole Serrano, NDCA Secretary/Treasurer, 4001 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205. Please send the following information to process your membership: Name, Address, Name of school, Name of principal/headmaster, Phone Number, and Email Address. If you would like to pay by credit card, please see our website for Pay Pal payment through the AFA website. We encourage you to look at the possibility of a lifetime membership for you and/or an institutional membership for your school or organization. Memberships need to be active by Oct 1 in order to vote in the elections for the Board and the first round of NFHS topic balloting for the 2008-2009 policy topic. Best, Tara L. Tate Director of Debate, Glenbrook South HS (IL) President, National Debate Coaches Association
  2. The National Debate Coaches Association is very pleased to announce a new project that provides open access to hundreds of summer institute files. We have partnered with 17 different institutes to provide open access to institute files to any interested coach or student. There is no catch or hidden strings... . The NDCA would like to thank the Institutes that have partnered with us in this resource project: Baylor University Dartmouth College Gonzaga University Miami (OH) University Michigan State University Missouri State University Northwestern University Stanford University of California - Berkeley University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Michigan University of Missouri – Kansas City University of Richmond University of North Texas Whitman - Policy Whitman - LD Right now, the project has over 560 files that are available for download for anyone that is interested. We wanted to make this project available as quickly as possible. We will continually be adding files to this project - many of the institutes are in the midst of sending their files to the NDCA for uploading to our hosting server. Please feel free to forward this email to anyone - our intent is to provide a mechanism of resource equity for programs throughout the nation. My apologies if you receive this email more than once as I merge multiple address books. To access this open access site, please visit our new website at http://ndca.debateteams.net - check out the "Announcements" box on the homepage for instructions. The password is all lower case. It is case sensitive. When you get to the directed server that the NDCA website directs you to, please click on “Projects and Files” which is 1/3 of the way down the page. Each institute represents a separate “project”. The number of files uploaded for each institute is listed in parentheses. Just click on an Institute to see a list of files to download! If you are interested in becoming an NDCA member, annual dues are only $25.00. To pay by check, please send $25.00 (check made out to the NDCA) to Nicole Serrano, NDCA Secretary/Treasurer, 4001 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205. Please send the following information to process your membership: Name, Address, Name of school, Name of principal/headmaster, Phone Number, and Email Address. If you would like to pay by credit card, please see our website for Pay Pal payment through the AFA website. We encourage you to look at the possibility of a lifetime membership for you and/or an institutional membership for your school or organization. Memberships need to be active by Oct 1 in order to vote in the elections for the Board and the first round of NFHS topic balloting for the 2008-2009 policy topic. Best, Tara L. Tate Director of Debate, Glenbrook South HS (IL) President, National Debate Coaches Association
  3. The National Debate Coaches Association is pleased to announce a new website! Please visit our new website at http://ndca.debateteams.net . On our website, you will be able to access many of our trademark features such as the tournament calendar, lesson plans, public relations kit, information about the NDCA Championships, and judge philosophies. We are still doing some cross-over of links from our old website...if you are experiencing some broken links here and there, please be patient...some of the links could not be transferred until Board members returned to school. We are also very excited about new features for the website...forums for discussion <we are hoping to get some forums going on travel tricks and fundraising ideas shortly>, announcements, etc. This is also the time of year to be thinking about renewing or activating NDCA memberships! There is a link on our website that you can do an electronic registration/payment through the AFA website. One may also renew their membership by sending their contact info <Name, Address, Name of school, Name of principal/headmaster, Phone Number, Email Address> and payment <$25. for an annual membership/ $250 for a lifetime or institutional membership> to: NDCA, c/o Nicole Serrano, 4001 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205. We encourage you to look at the possibility of a lifetime membership for you and/or an institutional membership for your school or organization. Memberships need to be active by Oct 1 in order to vote in the elections for the Board and the first round of NFHS topic balloting for the 2008-2009 policy topic. A special thanks to Orion Smith from Okemos HS on the creation and maintenance of our new website! Best, Tara Tate President, National Debate Coaches Association Director of Debate, Glenbrook South HS
  4. The National Debate Coaches Association is pleased to announce a new website! Please visit our new website at http://ndca.debateteams.net . On our website, you will be able to access many of our trademark features such as the tournament calendar, lesson plans, public relations kit, information about the NDCA Championships, and judge philosophies. We are still doing some cross-over of links from our old website...if you are experiencing some broken links here and there, please be patient...some of the links could not be transferred until Board members returned to school. We are also very excited about new features for the website...forums for discussion <we are hoping to get some forums going on travel tricks and fundraising ideas shortly>, announcements, etc. This is also the time of year to be thinking about renewing or activating NDCA memberships! There is a link on our website that you can do an electronic registration/payment through the AFA website. One may also renew their membership by sending their contact info <Name, Address, Name of school, Name of principal/headmaster, Phone Number, Email Address> and payment <$25. for an annual membership/ $250 for a lifetime or institutional membership> to: NDCA, c/o Nicole Serrano, 4001 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205. We encourage you to look at the possibility of a lifetime membership for you and/or an institutional membership for your school or organization. Memberships need to be active by Oct 1 in order to vote in the elections for the Board and the first round of NFHS topic balloting for the 2008-2009 policy topic. A special thanks to Orion Smith from Okemos HS on the creation and maintenance of our new website! Best, Tara Tate President, National Debate Coaches Association Director of Debate, Glenbrook South HS
  5. The NDCA will be launching a new website within a manner of days. The website will feature all of our traditional resources plus a whole host of others. Be watching for emails the next two weeks about some EXCITING NDCA projects! Tara
  6. Here are the final five topics: Health Care Ag Subsidies Energy Central Asia Immigration Resolutions above. TT
  7. Here are the final five topics: Health Care Ag Subsidies Energy Central Asia Immigration Resolutions above. TT
  8. General Session Meeting 3 Summary: We are down to seven resolutions (posted below). Each resolution gets five minutes of discussion. Kay: Is this the last chance for any changes in the topic? Once the voting begins, am I correct that the topics can’t be changed once voting begins. Ballingall: That is correct. Discussion Resolution #2: The USFG should establish a universal health care system in the United States. Tate: I did not coach nor debate on Sferra: This was a good year for debate. This got a lot of kids into debate. You got a lot of community judges. It held up very well. McComas: When we debated it in 1993-4, it was slightly different – insurance. We are clearly due for a debate on this issue. Kids need to be aware of the importance of health care. Harris-Campf: I was a senior. I thought it was a great topic – it was small enough that you had deep case debate but not too small that you had plenty of Aff ground. Glass: I was going to make the same argument. A lot of straight case turns. It was the last really good year of good case debate. Lietz: I debated that topic as well. I was horrified when the topic came out. I remember it as my favorite year as debate. People started liking it when they saw the relevance. McLain: This is the topic where the principal asked me to have a debate in front of the staff. Edwards: This is bound to hit at a time with a new President – it will likely be a very hot topic. Ballingall: By June 2009, six months into the new term, we will not have passed a universal health care – no matter who the President is. Sparkman: Out of the 32 topics I have coached, this was one of my favorites. They learned a lot from other nations. Discussion – Resolution #3 – The USFG should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural subsidies. Zane: This is a timely topic. There is a lot of media saturation. Kirksey: This allows for a wide diversity of cases from sugar subsidies to subsidizing rural health care. There are tremendous advantage and disadvantage ground. Zane: We like the idea of extending it into scenarios that are international. Edwards: This is a very good example of how domestic policy has scuttled international endeavors. What has killed the Doha Round is agricultural subsidies. This has major implications. The timeliness of this is now – we are beginning a new round of trade talks. Tate: Props to the topic authors. I did not want any part of this topic when I read the title page to the topic paper. The topic paper was very well-written and the authors did a fantastic job selling the need for the students to get this knowledge.e Iowa Rep: From Iowa, this will be an interesting topic – we will have to have medical people around. I was very interested in this topic – it will be very good for the state. Discussion on Resolution #4 – The USFG should should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Burgett: I have debated and coached this topic. It gives the kids a lot of breadth of knowledge. You can get fifteen articles. McComas: I think there is great case debate on this topic. Sferra: What about putting “its” between “increase” and “alternative”? McLain: Without an its, you are narrowing it to exclude non-profits. Sferra: I just don’t know how the government can increase anything but its own. Ballingall: That may be the answer to the question. Kay: Does this wording allow tariffs on international tech coming in? Edwards: Yes. To answer Frank’s question, the Aff might want to find a new alternative energy that we don’t give incentives to. The “its” limits out brand new incentives. McComas: “Its” implies what is existing. That limits the topic too much. Tate: Slight concern that it is too close to the recent college topic. Discussion on Resolution #5 – The USFG should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space. Scheutz: The kids would love it. It would draw a lot of people back into debate. Lietz: Revisiting the conversation on “and/or” as a modifier of exploration, non-military does apply. However, kids in debate rounds may not be able to articulate this. What about swapping exploration and development? That way kids can’t say military development. Ballingall: Is this a motion to amend? Kay: Second Glass: If you think it is a problem, my preference would be a “no” to this motion. Just put the non-military before development. The phrase is “exploration and development” in the literature. There is not military exploration. I would rather have “exploration and/or non-military development” than to swap. Ballingall: We will take that as a friendly amendment. Harris-Campf: I wonder if switching the terms increases the likelihood of military exploration being legitimate? Edwards: I am bothered by both things. The problem with this amendment is that you can talk about military exploration. That might put the military more in the topic than it is now. Teams could explore space lasers, etc. Glass: I agree with Edwards. I am not in favor of changing it, actually. My “friendly amendment” was to improve it… Sferra: Move to extend by four minutes. McComas: Second <Motion passes to extend discussion> Sferra: I don’t want to do to this what we did to national service. What does the author think? Schuetz: I think “non-military” grammatically modifies both. Glass: I agree. Kay: This is not a new motion. If this is a problem and to be super clear, add non-military in front of both. Pierce: Going back to the literature, I know the literature says “exploration and development.” Does it say “exploration and/or development”? Then, I go back to Tom’s original motion – you are safer switching exploration and development. Ballingall: At the moment, that amendment is not on the floor. Glass: I would like to go back to the initial discussion. Grammatically, “non-military” modifies both. The kids can learn a little grammar and defend that “non-military” modifies both. McLain: We are going to hear T issues no matter what. We should limit the Topicality issues by keeping the way it is. Switching the two words, back to Randy says, does not make sense – you explore before develop. Ballingall: Question has been called – the amendment is “The USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or non-military development in outer space”. <Previous question called>. Amendment fails. Back to original motion. Pierce: Motion to extend by one minute to put non-military in front of both. <No second> Discussion on Resolution #6 – The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. Kay: It is a fresh resolution. We need to know more about geography, the resources there, etc. Tate: I like this resolution a lot. I am concerned about small schools getting good research off of limited resources access. Kay: There is a lot of information out there on the Internet – lots of academic journals online, lots of Central Asia websites. McComas: I saw a lot out there last night when we were researching energy. Discussion on Resolution #7 – The USFG should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States. Edwards: This and health care will be hot in the middle of the presidential election. Sferra: This topic won’t go away either. Audience member: When I read this paper, I learned more than from any other papers. I would love the high school students of the nation to learn about this topic. I think it is a valuable topic. Sferra: It would nice to hear some rational debate on this topic. Discussion on Resolution #8 – The USFG should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unsell: A lot of talk about the nomenclature and K debate. The conclusion is that people want to debate language Ks will debate them. People that want the substantive issues will have them. Just last year, on a reservation I worked on, 18 kids died on the topic. Glass: Props to Randy to give it the best way to debate this topic. Tate: The college community hated this topic. It has a very negative bias in the literature in regards to more federal control and handling in Indian affairs. Pierce: I actually hear Tara’s comments as a positive. On face, this topic appears Affirmatively biased. Tara’s comments prove that there is Negative ground. I want this topic debated. We have not debated it in a while. Every state is affected by this topic. Students don’t get this education in the classroom. Bob (last name?): Students can debate about the corruption in the Indian nation. Unsell: I like this topic because of the control debate. We have to grasp the idea that we won’t be able to debate this topic in twenty years. <Roll call of all voting members…ten minute break to Caucus>. Ballot count eliminated the Natives topic...we are down to 6.
  9. General Session Meeting 3 Summary: We are down to seven resolutions (posted below). Each resolution gets five minutes of discussion. Kay: Is this the last chance for any changes in the topic? Once the voting begins, am I correct that the topics can’t be changed once voting begins. Ballingall: That is correct. Discussion Resolution #2: The USFG should establish a universal health care system in the United States. Tate: I did not coach nor debate on Sferra: This was a good year for debate. This got a lot of kids into debate. You got a lot of community judges. It held up very well. McComas: When we debated it in 1993-4, it was slightly different – insurance. We are clearly due for a debate on this issue. Kids need to be aware of the importance of health care. Harris-Campf: I was a senior. I thought it was a great topic – it was small enough that you had deep case debate but not too small that you had plenty of Aff ground. Glass: I was going to make the same argument. A lot of straight case turns. It was the last really good year of good case debate. Lietz: I debated that topic as well. I was horrified when the topic came out. I remember it as my favorite year as debate. People started liking it when they saw the relevance. McLain: This is the topic where the principal asked me to have a debate in front of the staff. Edwards: This is bound to hit at a time with a new President – it will likely be a very hot topic. Ballingall: By June 2009, six months into the new term, we will not have passed a universal health care – no matter who the President is. Sparkman: Out of the 32 topics I have coached, this was one of my favorites. They learned a lot from other nations. Discussion – Resolution #3 – The USFG should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural subsidies. Zane: This is a timely topic. There is a lot of media saturation. Kirksey: This allows for a wide diversity of cases from sugar subsidies to subsidizing rural health care. There are tremendous advantage and disadvantage ground. Zane: We like the idea of extending it into scenarios that are international. Edwards: This is a very good example of how domestic policy has scuttled international endeavors. What has killed the Doha Round is agricultural subsidies. This has major implications. The timeliness of this is now – we are beginning a new round of trade talks. Tate: Props to the topic authors. I did not want any part of this topic when I read the title page to the topic paper. The topic paper was very well-written and the authors did a fantastic job selling the need for the students to get this knowledge.e Iowa Rep: From Iowa, this will be an interesting topic – we will have to have medical people around. I was very interested in this topic – it will be very good for the state. Discussion on Resolution #4 – The USFG should should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Burgett: I have debated and coached this topic. It gives the kids a lot of breadth of knowledge. You can get fifteen articles. McComas: I think there is great case debate on this topic. Sferra: What about putting “its” between “increase” and “alternative”? McLain: Without an its, you are narrowing it to exclude non-profits. Sferra: I just don’t know how the government can increase anything but its own. Ballingall: That may be the answer to the question. Kay: Does this wording allow tariffs on international tech coming in? Edwards: Yes. To answer Frank’s question, the Aff might want to find a new alternative energy that we don’t give incentives to. The “its” limits out brand new incentives. McComas: “Its” implies what is existing. That limits the topic too much. Tate: Slight concern that it is too close to the recent college topic. Discussion on Resolution #5 – The USFG should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space. Scheutz: The kids would love it. It would draw a lot of people back into debate. Lietz: Revisiting the conversation on “and/or” as a modifier of exploration, non-military does apply. However, kids in debate rounds may not be able to articulate this. What about swapping exploration and development? That way kids can’t say military development. Ballingall: Is this a motion to amend? Kay: Second Glass: If you think it is a problem, my preference would be a “no” to this motion. Just put the non-military before development. The phrase is “exploration and development” in the literature. There is not military exploration. I would rather have “exploration and/or non-military development” than to swap. Ballingall: We will take that as a friendly amendment. Harris-Campf: I wonder if switching the terms increases the likelihood of military exploration being legitimate? Edwards: I am bothered by both things. The problem with this amendment is that you can talk about military exploration. That might put the military more in the topic than it is now. Teams could explore space lasers, etc. Glass: I agree with Edwards. I am not in favor of changing it, actually. My “friendly amendment” was to improve it… Sferra: Move to extend by four minutes. McComas: Second <Motion passes to extend discussion> Sferra: I don’t want to do to this what we did to national service. What does the author think? Schuetz: I think “non-military” grammatically modifies both. Glass: I agree. Kay: This is not a new motion. If this is a problem and to be super clear, add non-military in front of both. Pierce: Going back to the literature, I know the literature says “exploration and development.” Does it say “exploration and/or development”? Then, I go back to Tom’s original motion – you are safer switching exploration and development. Ballingall: At the moment, that amendment is not on the floor. Glass: I would like to go back to the initial discussion. Grammatically, “non-military” modifies both. The kids can learn a little grammar and defend that “non-military” modifies both. McLain: We are going to hear T issues no matter what. We should limit the Topicality issues by keeping the way it is. Switching the two words, back to Randy says, does not make sense – you explore before develop. Ballingall: Question has been called – the amendment is “The USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or non-military development in outer space”. <Previous question called>. Amendment fails. Back to original motion. Pierce: Motion to extend by one minute to put non-military in front of both. <No second> Discussion on Resolution #6 – The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. Kay: It is a fresh resolution. We need to know more about geography, the resources there, etc. Tate: I like this resolution a lot. I am concerned about small schools getting good research off of limited resources access. Kay: There is a lot of information out there on the Internet – lots of academic journals online, lots of Central Asia websites. McComas: I saw a lot out there last night when we were researching energy. Discussion on Resolution #7 – The USFG should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States. Edwards: This and health care will be hot in the middle of the presidential election. Sferra: This topic won’t go away either. Audience member: When I read this paper, I learned more than from any other papers. I would love the high school students of the nation to learn about this topic. I think it is a valuable topic. Sferra: It would nice to hear some rational debate on this topic. Discussion on Resolution #8 – The USFG should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unsell: A lot of talk about the nomenclature and K debate. The conclusion is that people want to debate language Ks will debate them. People that want the substantive issues will have them. Just last year, on a reservation I worked on, 18 kids died on the topic. Glass: Props to Randy to give it the best way to debate this topic. Tate: The college community hated this topic. It has a very negative bias in the literature in regards to more federal control and handling in Indian affairs. Pierce: I actually hear Tara’s comments as a positive. On face, this topic appears Affirmatively biased. Tara’s comments prove that there is Negative ground. I want this topic debated. We have not debated it in a while. Every state is affected by this topic. Students don’t get this education in the classroom. Bob (last name?): Students can debate about the corruption in the Indian nation. Unsell: I like this topic because of the control debate. We have to grasp the idea that we won’t be able to debate this topic in twenty years. <Roll call of all voting members…ten minute break to Caucus>. Ballot count eliminated the Natives topic...we are down to 6.
  10. I believe that a side bias exists in debate now...for the Neg. Advent of Ks and PICs make life much easier on the Neg. How, how would the Aff be able to defend itself against the K in a world of forcing the restriction of immigration? Seriously...you are left with impact turning. I am pretty sure other args would be non-starters. Having the Aff defend an increase of restrictions on immigration tilts the already existing bias farther toward the neg. TT
  11. This is the final straw vote taken by all attendees -- the following seven resolutions go into Sunday's meeting, where the delegates will vote for the final 5: 2008-2009 Prospective Debate Resolutions 2. Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a universal health care system in the United States. 3. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural subsidies. 4. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. 5. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space. 6. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. 7. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States. 8. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  12. This is the final straw vote taken by all attendees -- the following seven resolutions go into Sunday's meeting, where the delegates will vote for the final 5: 2008-2009 Prospective Debate Resolutions 2. Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a universal health care system in the United States. 3. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural subsidies. 4. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. 5. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space. 6. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. 7. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States. 8. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  13. These are the 8 resolutions that will be voted on (these are in no particular order): 1. FEMA Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency 2. Health Insurance Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a universal national health care system 3. Ag Subsidies Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its domestic agricultural subsidies. 4. Alternative Energy Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States 5. Outer Space Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space 6. Central Asia Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more of the countries in Central Asia 7. Immigration: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially decreasing its restriction on immigration to the United States 8. Indigenous Peoples Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
  14. These are the 8 resolutions that will be voted on (these are in no particular order): 1. FEMA Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency 2. Health Insurance Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a universal national health care system. 3. Ag Subsidies Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its domestic agricultural subsidies. 4. Alternative Energy Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States 5. Outer Space Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development in outer space 6. Central Asia Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more of the countries in Central Asia 7. Immigration: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially decreasing its restriction on immigration to the United States 8. Indigenous Peoples Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
  15. The GBS email server has been down for the last 48 hours. I would like NDCA members to email me to include their vote when I cast the NDCA vote tomorrow for the five topics. Please email me at tara.l.tate@gmail.com if you have a preference for or against any of the potential topics. Tara
  16. The GBS email server has been down for the last 48 hours. I would like NDCA members to email me to include their vote when I cast the NDCA vote tomorrow for the five topics. Please email me at tara.l.tate@gmail.com if you have a preference for or against any of the potential topics. Tara
  17. Indigenous Peoples Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase social services to indigenous peoples of the United States. Sferra: Before we start the discussion, we asked for definitions of social services. Author: <Definitions of social services provided> Sferra: I believe this was the resolution in the last go-round. Since “social services” were not defined in the topic paper, we asked for those definitions in the Marshall Committee. Glass: I spent 90 minutes reading about “indigenous peoples”. I came away more confused than when I started. There are quite a few definitions that say it is not well-defined. It is a term most used in Australia…it is not well used in the US. The US uses “Native Americans” and “Indians.” Most Indian tribes prefer “Indians.” It is our liberal, pale-faces that prefer “Native Americans.” I went back to the college topic and the term they used was “Indian Country.” That is actually a legal term for the governing bodies of Indian land. Even though that was some K links, they made it through the year because that is the term for the governing body. Would you have an issue with “Indian Country?” Author: I used “indigenous peoples” because in looking at a non-politically charged word, that is why I chose it. Glass: The one that has been used before is “Indian Country”. Ballingall: Did you have a response? McLain: In Alaska, there are Indian people that are not living in reservations or Indian Country. I am wondering how Indian Country would cover individuals not living on reservations? Author: One nation specifically allows for money to be spent to live off reservation. Pierce: I have a question/thought – what about using the phrase “Bureau of Indian Affairs”? Wouldn’t most Affs go through the BIA? Author: That gives the Negative the ground to ban the BIA. Sferra: This is a fertile area, but here is my concern. Does BIA take care of those not on non-Indian land? Author: There is a significant portion of the Indian population that does not receive any federal help. Edwards: I like Randy’s solution. If you named a federal agency, you would avoid the question of how you are going to name the people. At least with mentioning the agency, you allow the Aff to choose what they were going to defend. Glass: Because the BIA does specific stuff, we can have a direction here. Off the top of my head, “should substantially increase social services by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Sferra: Second. Gardinier: <Reads off the BIA website>. Glass: This is why social services is there. Sferra: Does the BIA have anything to do with social services? Author: Looking at the Dept of Interior website, they discuss loan and grant money, tracing ancestry… Glass: I am looking to…methadone, etc. Sparkman: But that is the Health and Human Services. Edwards: If BIA provides those services, the Aff could provide it to people not on federal land. Glass: To Teresa and David’s point, the BIA has done a lot of social services…methadone awareness. They do more than land surveying. Ballingall: We do have to research what social services the BIA does. Sferra: I still have concern – what is Negative ground? Edwards: No problem with Negative ground – the Negative can say BIA bad….I think this is a Negatively biased topic. Pierce: Let’s say the BIA only does land-management, as long as the BIA does one social service, the Aff could theoretically add health care, education, etc. to the BIA? Glass: <Reads off BIA website>. It seems like they can do “social services”. Murrell: I have the same problem with the Immigration discussion. If you are putting the word “Indian” in the resolution, it is a link. Glass: It is the name of the agency. Edwards: There will be K links no matter what. By naming the agency, the Aff has more ground to name how they want to define the people. Author: What I like best about this we have a ton of problems with “in the United States”, “of the United States”…this eliminates this. Ballingall: Is this a broad enough look at this area? Does this include environmental justice issues? Is “social services” to limiting? Author: I still think it addresses the critical needs of the people. Kay: I am not 100% convinced is where BIA is where we want to be. There is a federal Indian Health agency. It is a federally recognized program that deals with “social services.” Is that an alternative? An addition? I think it is more on point. Edwards: I think you need the BIA to give the Negative ground. That is the hot issue in the literature. Kirksey: On the mental health care topic, the Indian Health Services existed for appropriations. The plan was actually executed by the BIA. I think everything is executed by the BIA. Sferra: I call for the question. Resolution passes unanimously.
  18. Indigenous Peoples Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase social services to indigenous peoples of the United States. Sferra: Before we start the discussion, we asked for definitions of social services. Author: <Definitions of social services provided> Sferra: I believe this was the resolution in the last go-round. Since “social services” were not defined in the topic paper, we asked for those definitions in the Marshall Committee. Glass: I spent 90 minutes reading about “indigenous peoples”. I came away more confused than when I started. There are quite a few definitions that say it is not well-defined. It is a term most used in Australia…it is not well used in the US. The US uses “Native Americans” and “Indians.” Most Indian tribes prefer “Indians.” It is our liberal, pale-faces that prefer “Native Americans.” I went back to the college topic and the term they used was “Indian Country.” That is actually a legal term for the governing bodies of Indian land. Even though that was some K links, they made it through the year because that is the term for the governing body. Would you have an issue with “Indian Country?” Author: I used “indigenous peoples” because in looking at a non-politically charged word, that is why I chose it. Glass: The one that has been used before is “Indian Country”. Ballingall: Did you have a response? McLain: In Alaska, there are Indian people that are not living in reservations or Indian Country. I am wondering how Indian Country would cover individuals not living on reservations? Author: One nation specifically allows for money to be spent to live off reservation. Pierce: I have a question/thought – what about using the phrase “Bureau of Indian Affairs”? Wouldn’t most Affs go through the BIA? Author: That gives the Negative the ground to ban the BIA. Sferra: This is a fertile area, but here is my concern. Does BIA take care of those not on non-Indian land? Author: There is a significant portion of the Indian population that does not receive any federal help. Edwards: I like Randy’s solution. If you named a federal agency, you would avoid the question of how you are going to name the people. At least with mentioning the agency, you allow the Aff to choose what they were going to defend. Glass: Because the BIA does specific stuff, we can have a direction here. Off the top of my head, “should substantially increase social services by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Sferra: Second. Gardinier: <Reads off the BIA website>. Glass: This is why social services is there. Sferra: Does the BIA have anything to do with social services? Author: Looking at the Dept of Interior website, they discuss loan and grant money, tracing ancestry… Glass: I am looking to…methadone, etc. Sparkman: But that is the Health and Human Services. Edwards: If BIA provides those services, the Aff could provide it to people not on federal land. Glass: To Teresa and David’s point, the BIA has done a lot of social services…methadone awareness. They do more than land surveying. Ballingall: We do have to research what social services the BIA does. Sferra: I still have concern – what is Negative ground? Edwards: No problem with Negative ground – the Negative can say BIA bad….I think this is a Negatively biased topic. Pierce: Let’s say the BIA only does land-management, as long as the BIA does one social service, the Aff could theoretically add health care, education, etc. to the BIA? Glass: <Reads off BIA website>. It seems like they can do “social services”. Murrell: I have the same problem with the Immigration discussion. If you are putting the word “Indian” in the resolution, it is a link. Glass: It is the name of the agency. Edwards: There will be K links no matter what. By naming the agency, the Aff has more ground to name how they want to define the people. Author: What I like best about this we have a ton of problems with “in the United States”, “of the United States”…this eliminates this. Ballingall: Is this a broad enough look at this area? Does this include environmental justice issues? Is “social services” to limiting? Author: I still think it addresses the critical needs of the people. Kay: I am not 100% convinced is where BIA is where we want to be. There is a federal Indian Health agency. It is a federally recognized program that deals with “social services.” Is that an alternative? An addition? I think it is more on point. Edwards: I think you need the BIA to give the Negative ground. That is the hot issue in the literature. Kirksey: On the mental health care topic, the Indian Health Services existed for appropriations. The plan was actually executed by the BIA. I think everything is executed by the BIA. Sferra: I call for the question. Resolution passes unanimously.
  19. Immigration Resolution – The USFG should establish a policy substantially increasing restriction on immigration to the United States. Pierce: Why “on” instead of “of”? Author: No reason. Glass: I think “of” makes more sense. I would like to look it up. Author: We steered away from “immigration policy” - the literature does not support it. We think “immigration policy” is also bidirectional. We chose limiting immigration for the Aff because it is more real world (report shows a list of cases…liberalizing immigration does not provide a lot of cases). Amnesty is so politically unpopular. We gave restriction to the Aff. Glass: It seems like “of” is preferred based on the hits. Ballingall: We change to “of” without “on” without objection. Glass: This is something the USFG can do. It can increase restrictions. I am curious about “restriction” vs. “restrictions”. Author: Our feeling is that restriction can be any numerous. Tate: I am concerned about forcing the Aff to defend the conservative approaches there Author: I reservedly agree with you. When the other author did a lot of the literature, it is difficult to pick out Glass: I am not sure I agree. As Tara said, if we decrease restriction for the Aff, they are not forced to walk in with a K link. The Neg would have an alternative approach if the Aff decreases restriction. With this, you force the Aff to be a K link. Author: We don’t have a problem if liberalization goes Aff. McLain: I like David’s comment for a different reason. This is a political/emotional charge. The language that is suggested will fly in Oregon. Sferra: In a state like Colorado, if we came in with a liberalization, it would die. I understand the concerns. This wording makes it sellable. I am bothered that it is a conservative position – maybe it is time to try that. Edwards: If I was approaching the resolution worded this way, I don’t want to advocate building the wall. I will probably find some way to restrict terrorists coming in. Do you have any comments? Author: The paper speaks to this. There is a ton of support from the far left to increase airport security, profiling, etc. We need to increase intelligence. Edwards: From your looking at the literature, aren’t there a lot of people that say the people that want to build the wall, etc. has missed the boat? Doesn’t the lit support a focused approach? Tate: I don’t think racial profiling of terrorists is a good Aff case if that is the “left” approach. Edwards: I agree…there are other Affs that could be isolated from the K approach. Racial profiling was listed but that is not one I would approach here. Author: I share Frank’s concerns about how this will be sold. However, we won’t object to a liberalization on the Aff. Pierce: Is there anything in the lit that suggests the Aff to have the USFG do something to keep another country to keep its citizens emigrating to here? Lietz: Could you fix that by eliminating the phrase “establish a policy”? Ballingall: Is there an objection to taking out “establish a policy”? Glass: It is clean, but I have a complete opposite take in NY. People will look at this and will say no way. McLain: True, in Oregon as well. Sferra: You will have a problem no matter what the resolution is. Glass: You do not have to debate an increase as the Negative to clash with a decrease Aff. The Aff is forced to debate a K link here. Tate: It is not a political issue but a debatability issue. The “increase restriction” forces the Aff in an unbalanced side bias. Sferra: I move to change “increase” to “decrease”. Glass: Second. Lietz: This does not make the K links go away. Glass: Yes, but it is day and night. Sferra: How does the author think about this? Author: The liberalization debate is a good debate. Like Rich said earlier, the more reasonable approaches were was to make sure the terrorists don’t get in if it is an “increase restriction”. Both authors politically agree with this much more. Audience member: This is the home school topic this year. They are debating a bidirectional topic. The key is illegal immigration. Sferra: Are you happy with this? Author: Yes Wakefield: The grammarian in me…what about adding the word “the” in front of restriction? Pierce: Couldn’t you have the federal government do things to the states? It needs “its”. Glass: I move to add “its” before restriction. Sferra: This is out of order. We have an original motion. Ballingall: Glass’ motion is to amend the motion. <New resolution: The USFG should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States>. Motion voted and unanimous. Author states he is happy with the resolution.
  20. Immigration Resolution – The USFG should establish a policy substantially increasing restriction on immigration to the United States. Pierce: Why “on” instead of “of”? Author: No reason. Glass: I think “of” makes more sense. I would like to look it up. Author: We steered away from “immigration policy” - the literature does not support it. We think “immigration policy” is also bidirectional. We chose limiting immigration for the Aff because it is more real world (report shows a list of cases…liberalizing immigration does not provide a lot of cases). Amnesty is so politically unpopular. We gave restriction to the Aff. Glass: It seems like “of” is preferred based on the hits. Ballingall: We change to “of” without “on” without objection. Glass: This is something the USFG can do. It can increase restrictions. I am curious about “restriction” vs. “restrictions”. Author: Our feeling is that restriction can be any numerous. Tate: I am concerned about forcing the Aff to defend the conservative approaches there Author: I reservedly agree with you. When the other author did a lot of the literature, it is difficult to pick out Glass: I am not sure I agree. As Tara said, if we decrease restriction for the Aff, they are not forced to walk in with a K link. The Neg would have an alternative approach if the Aff decreases restriction. With this, you force the Aff to be a K link. Author: We don’t have a problem if liberalization goes Aff. McLain: I like David’s comment for a different reason. This is a political/emotional charge. The language that is suggested will fly in Oregon. Sferra: In a state like Colorado, if we came in with a liberalization, it would die. I understand the concerns. This wording makes it sellable. I am bothered that it is a conservative position – maybe it is time to try that. Edwards: If I was approaching the resolution worded this way, I don’t want to advocate building the wall. I will probably find some way to restrict terrorists coming in. Do you have any comments? Author: The paper speaks to this. There is a ton of support from the far left to increase airport security, profiling, etc. We need to increase intelligence. Edwards: From your looking at the literature, aren’t there a lot of people that say the people that want to build the wall, etc. has missed the boat? Doesn’t the lit support a focused approach? Tate: I don’t think racial profiling of terrorists is a good Aff case if that is the “left” approach. Edwards: I agree…there are other Affs that could be isolated from the K approach. Racial profiling was listed but that is not one I would approach here. Author: I share Frank’s concerns about how this will be sold. However, we won’t object to a liberalization on the Aff. Pierce: Is there anything in the lit that suggests the Aff to have the USFG do something to keep another country to keep its citizens emigrating to here? Lietz: Could you fix that by eliminating the phrase “establish a policy”? Ballingall: Is there an objection to taking out “establish a policy”? Glass: It is clean, but I have a complete opposite take in NY. People will look at this and will say no way. McLain: True, in Oregon as well. Sferra: You will have a problem no matter what the resolution is. Glass: You do not have to debate an increase as the Negative to clash with a decrease Aff. The Aff is forced to debate a K link here. Tate: It is not a political issue but a debatability issue. The “increase restriction” forces the Aff in an unbalanced side bias. Sferra: I move to change “increase” to “decrease”. Glass: Second. Lietz: This does not make the K links go away. Glass: Yes, but it is day and night. Sferra: How does the author think about this? Author: The liberalization debate is a good debate. Like Rich said earlier, the more reasonable approaches were was to make sure the terrorists don’t get in if it is an “increase restriction”. Both authors politically agree with this much more. Audience member: This is the home school topic this year. They are debating a bidirectional topic. The key is illegal immigration. Sferra: Are you happy with this? Author: Yes Wakefield: The grammarian in me…what about adding the word “the” in front of restriction? Pierce: Couldn’t you have the federal government do things to the states? It needs “its”. Glass: I move to add “its” before restriction. Sferra: This is out of order. We have an original motion. Ballingall: Glass’ motion is to amend the motion. <New resolution: The USFG should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States>. Motion voted and unanimous. Author states he is happy with the resolution.
  21. Central Asia Resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. Author: I was given the assignment last night about whether or not we can take Caucuses out. I think it might hurt a bit of ground in regards to some of the ethnic conflict happening in the Caucus region. The Negative could have that in regards to solvency of Aff advantages. One alternative is “south Caucuses”, which specifically identifies Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. With just “Central Asia”, the resolution is more sellable. Glass: In the Marshall committee, we talked about sellability. People would have to google Caucuses. Central Asia is five countries. That is why the Marshall Committee went in this direction. So you are comfortable that Central Asia captures the focus? Author: Yes. Glass: Do you think this is too similar to Africa? Author: Not at all. The focus of this area is not public health. It could be, yes. There is AIDS in this area. The focus will be relationships, energy resources, ethnic conflict, etc. The major focus is not public health. McLain: Every time we have had “foreign assistance”, we have talked about it being broad. Last year, we made some specific areas. How does the Committee or author feel about “foreign assistance”? Glass: Since this is a much more defined area than SSA, it is better to broaden the action. Author: There is a wide variety of Affirmative cases. The impact of Russia and China. Our relations with the two of them fluctuate. The initial set of cases includes energy, relations, trade, democracy, peacekeeping, wmd, terrorism. Tate: Can you sell me on why the US is the key actor? I am worried about a limited amount of solvency advocates and International Actor CPs. Author: The relations debate is at the heart of that US key warrant. Lietz: The other argument is that “in Africa” is that it is assistance/aid oriented. In this literature, the arguments are centered on why US involvement is good versus Sino involvement. Author: Especially if you talk about US military bases. Pierce: I am looking at the last page of Aff cases. Help me out on a few of these. I don’t understand how “banning arms sales” would be topical on “increasing foreign assistance”? What kind of foreign assistance is given for global relations? Helps me out on those Affs. Author: The “banning” would not be, but the “arms sales” could be topical. Lietz: You could use CBMs. Author: Numerous attempts for diplomatic summits in the area – that would fall under “global relations” Pierce: What is the difference between “global relations” and “hegemony?” Author: <Discussion missed> Pierce: How does “limit peacekeeping” fall? Author: You could provide “peacekeeping”, limit is under another resolution. We could increase our pkg forces in the area. Even under the UNPKOs, this region was not a prominent player in that resolution. A lot of the cases listed are for a variety of resolutions – “banning” and “limiting” would be Negative. To clean up the wording, what about “one or more Central Asian countries”. Glass: Is the term of art “Central Asia”? Author: I don’t think it matters much. Glass: I like the kids to be able to google “Central Asia”. Author: “Countries” is also the proper term over “nations” or “states”. <Discussion missed>
  22. Central Asia Resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia. Author: I was given the assignment last night about whether or not we can take Caucuses out. I think it might hurt a bit of ground in regards to some of the ethnic conflict happening in the Caucus region. The Negative could have that in regards to solvency of Aff advantages. One alternative is “south Caucuses”, which specifically identifies Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. With just “Central Asia”, the resolution is more sellable. Glass: In the Marshall committee, we talked about sellability. People would have to google Caucuses. Central Asia is five countries. That is why the Marshall Committee went in this direction. So you are comfortable that Central Asia captures the focus? Author: Yes. Glass: Do you think this is too similar to Africa? Author: Not at all. The focus of this area is not public health. It could be, yes. There is AIDS in this area. The focus will be relationships, energy resources, ethnic conflict, etc. The major focus is not public health. McLain: Every time we have had “foreign assistance”, we have talked about it being broad. Last year, we made some specific areas. How does the Committee or author feel about “foreign assistance”? Glass: Since this is a much more defined area than SSA, it is better to broaden the action. Author: There is a wide variety of Affirmative cases. The impact of Russia and China. Our relations with the two of them fluctuate. The initial set of cases includes energy, relations, trade, democracy, peacekeeping, wmd, terrorism. Tate: Can you sell me on why the US is the key actor? I am worried about a limited amount of solvency advocates and International Actor CPs. Author: The relations debate is at the heart of that US key warrant. Lietz: The other argument is that “in Africa” is that it is assistance/aid oriented. In this literature, the arguments are centered on why US involvement is good versus Sino involvement. Author: Especially if you talk about US military bases. Pierce: I am looking at the last page of Aff cases. Help me out on a few of these. I don’t understand how “banning arms sales” would be topical on “increasing foreign assistance”? What kind of foreign assistance is given for global relations? Helps me out on those Affs. Author: The “banning” would not be, but the “arms sales” could be topical. Lietz: You could use CBMs. Author: Numerous attempts for diplomatic summits in the area – that would fall under “global relations” Pierce: What is the difference between “global relations” and “hegemony?” Author: <Discussion missed> Pierce: How does “limit peacekeeping” fall? Author: You could provide “peacekeeping”, limit is under another resolution. We could increase our pkg forces in the area. Even under the UNPKOs, this region was not a prominent player in that resolution. A lot of the cases listed are for a variety of resolutions – “banning” and “limiting” would be Negative. To clean up the wording, what about “one or more Central Asian countries”. Glass: Is the term of art “Central Asia”? Author: I don’t think it matters much. Glass: I like the kids to be able to google “Central Asia”. Author: “Countries” is also the proper term over “nations” or “states”. <Discussion missed>
  23. Space Resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its non- Author: Outer Space is clearly defined as beyond earth’s atmosphere. It should be Pierce: Can you develop Outer Space without exploring it? Author: Yes – we are getting little pieces of stuff that are expensive here but dirt cheap there. Pierce: So, yes? Author: It depends on what you want to Pierce: I find the “and/or” unsellable. What about only including development? Edwards: I don’t think sellability with a space resolution with those words “and/or”. It is similar to the college topic. I have some T issues. I was looking for definitions of Outer Space. It almost seems like it does not include space stations, remote sensing satellites. Author: If it is beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, it is. I understand the USFG is lowering its satellite to spy more, but… It needs to be outside the Earth’s atmosphere. McLain: “Exploration” does include “development”? Author: Some on the topic say exploration includes development. But you can’t mine asteroids just on an exploration topic. In the literature, exploration and development is a phrase that is everywhere. Glass: In the Marshall committee, there were some concerns to just having development. A lot of these cases are really expensive. Exploration allows cases for Affs to look around things and find them, which is a huge undertaking. The phrase of including both gives Aff some flexibility. Wolf: The definitions of Outer Space is very Earth-centric. Are there definitions of that are not focused on the Earth. I am just wondering if that definition is out there. Edwards: I did some looking on that. I found definitions of Outer Space that said the atmosphere outside any planet. But that is not the stock definition…the UN has the Outer Space Treaty which defines what Outer Space is generally defined. The way treaties use that term is to make it Earth-centric. Glass: All of the defs in the OED dictionary has Outer Space non-capitalized. Author: In the literature, it was typically capitalized. Edwards: My suggestion would be looking at that issue before we commit to it. If we capitalize it, we have to have a good reason. Author: The definitions I provided in the paper are capitalized. Schwarzlose: I am concerned about fiating technology. <Comments missed>. Edwards: I like that debate…a stock issues debate about solvency. The debate will be, as it was earlier, focused on what is possible and what is not possible. It is what kids enjoyed getting into. Holladay: Going back to the capitalization, under Article 1 and 2, Outer is capitalized but space is not. Edwards: Is it capitalized in the treaty? Lietz: As a treaty name, it is. It is not capitalized in the text of the treaty. Kay: In a law review search, outer space is not capitalized. Ballingall: Motion to not capitalize Outer Space. Sferra: Second <Motion passes> Ballingall: Further discussion? So, “outer space” is anything beyond the earth’s atmosphere? Beyond the mesosphere is farther out there? Edwards: Mesosphere is a layer of atmosphere. Wakefield: When you use the compound direct object of “exploration and/or development”, the phrase “in outer space” does not make sense in regards to exploration. Glass: <Discussion missed>. You want to avoid cases that just do SETI from the earth, look up books in space. This means the Aff has to go there. Wakefield: We have massive steps before we get to solvency? Glass: No, we do this every day…NASA launches something every day. They launched a Mars probe today. So the Aff says “fund a Mars probe.” Wolf: With “its”, does this preclude private development? Author: Privatization is Negative ground. Edwards: International cooperation is also negative ground. Author: For example, mining the asteroid belt is a plan. We don’t have to mine another ore on Glass: Does the term “outer space” modify exploration? Tate: Yes… “exploration and/or development” is a complete object phrase. The phrase “in outer space” modifies the entirety of that object phrase. Audience member: Does this resolution allow us to develop the means to get to outer space? Edwards: My reaction to that is that any Aff case on any resolution has to build something, spend money, etc. You always have that problem. The problem is immediate effects (which is this) vs. distant effects. I don’t think that effects this preposition with “in outer space” or “of outer space”. The Author has a good reason for this phrase. Glass: I think you can increase exploration and/or development in outer space by building a new craft to do it. Wakefield: Would it help if you have “exploration of and/or development in outer space”? Glass: You are putting the Author’s concern back in…when you add “of” in you are topical by looking at a telescope. Wolf: Question about the workings of NASA – how much of NASA is truly non-military? Isn’t that connection strong? Are Affs going to have to specify non-military branches of NASA? Author: Our military has to schedule their work with NASA just like doctors, etc. The military is integrated with NASA like all other agencies. NASA is independent of the military. Kirksey: I am concerned about the question of timeframe of developing technology. The Aff advantage solvency is long-term…politics DA is short-term. Author: If you start reading the lit, we have a lot of technology that is just waiting to be used. Ballingall: Same is true for alternative fuel sources. Edwards: I have a different take from the author, but a different result. Tech will be debated on the topic. Then you get into a lively debate…remember solar sails? That timeframe is a great debate. The Aff has to be able to defend their technology.
  24. Space Resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its non- Author: Outer Space is clearly defined as beyond earth’s atmosphere. It should be Pierce: Can you develop Outer Space without exploring it? Author: Yes – we are getting little pieces of stuff that are expensive here but dirt cheap there. Pierce: So, yes? Author: It depends on what you want to Pierce: I find the “and/or” unsellable. What about only including development? Edwards: I don’t think sellability with a space resolution with those words “and/or”. It is similar to the college topic. I have some T issues. I was looking for definitions of Outer Space. It almost seems like it does not include space stations, remote sensing satellites. Author: If it is beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, it is. I understand the USFG is lowering its satellite to spy more, but… It needs to be outside the Earth’s atmosphere. McLain: “Exploration” does include “development”? Author: Some on the topic say exploration includes development. But you can’t mine asteroids just on an exploration topic. In the literature, exploration and development is a phrase that is everywhere. Glass: In the Marshall committee, there were some concerns to just having development. A lot of these cases are really expensive. Exploration allows cases for Affs to look around things and find them, which is a huge undertaking. The phrase of including both gives Aff some flexibility. Wolf: The definitions of Outer Space is very Earth-centric. Are there definitions of that are not focused on the Earth. I am just wondering if that definition is out there. Edwards: I did some looking on that. I found definitions of Outer Space that said the atmosphere outside any planet. But that is not the stock definition…the UN has the Outer Space Treaty which defines what Outer Space is generally defined. The way treaties use that term is to make it Earth-centric. Glass: All of the defs in the OED dictionary has Outer Space non-capitalized. Author: In the literature, it was typically capitalized. Edwards: My suggestion would be looking at that issue before we commit to it. If we capitalize it, we have to have a good reason. Author: The definitions I provided in the paper are capitalized. Schwarzlose: I am concerned about fiating technology. <Comments missed>. Edwards: I like that debate…a stock issues debate about solvency. The debate will be, as it was earlier, focused on what is possible and what is not possible. It is what kids enjoyed getting into. Holladay: Going back to the capitalization, under Article 1 and 2, Outer is capitalized but space is not. Edwards: Is it capitalized in the treaty? Lietz: As a treaty name, it is. It is not capitalized in the text of the treaty. Kay: In a law review search, outer space is not capitalized. Ballingall: Motion to not capitalize Outer Space. Sferra: Second <Motion passes> Ballingall: Further discussion? So, “outer space” is anything beyond the earth’s atmosphere? Beyond the mesosphere is farther out there? Edwards: Mesosphere is a layer of atmosphere. Wakefield: When you use the compound direct object of “exploration and/or development”, the phrase “in outer space” does not make sense in regards to exploration. Glass: <Discussion missed>. You want to avoid cases that just do SETI from the earth, look up books in space. This means the Aff has to go there. Wakefield: We have massive steps before we get to solvency? Glass: No, we do this every day…NASA launches something every day. They launched a Mars probe today. So the Aff says “fund a Mars probe.” Wolf: With “its”, does this preclude private development? Author: Privatization is Negative ground. Edwards: International cooperation is also negative ground. Author: For example, mining the asteroid belt is a plan. We don’t have to mine another ore on Glass: Does the term “outer space” modify exploration? Tate: Yes… “exploration and/or development” is a complete object phrase. The phrase “in outer space” modifies the entirety of that object phrase. Audience member: Does this resolution allow us to develop the means to get to outer space? Edwards: My reaction to that is that any Aff case on any resolution has to build something, spend money, etc. You always have that problem. The problem is immediate effects (which is this) vs. distant effects. I don’t think that effects this preposition with “in outer space” or “of outer space”. The Author has a good reason for this phrase. Glass: I think you can increase exploration and/or development in outer space by building a new craft to do it. Wakefield: Would it help if you have “exploration of and/or development in outer space”? Glass: You are putting the Author’s concern back in…when you add “of” in you are topical by looking at a telescope. Wolf: Question about the workings of NASA – how much of NASA is truly non-military? Isn’t that connection strong? Are Affs going to have to specify non-military branches of NASA? Author: Our military has to schedule their work with NASA just like doctors, etc. The military is integrated with NASA like all other agencies. NASA is independent of the military. Kirksey: I am concerned about the question of timeframe of developing technology. The Aff advantage solvency is long-term…politics DA is short-term. Author: If you start reading the lit, we have a lot of technology that is just waiting to be used. Ballingall: Same is true for alternative fuel sources. Edwards: I have a different take from the author, but a different result. Tech will be debated on the topic. Then you get into a lively debate…remember solar sails? That timeframe is a great debate. The Aff has to be able to defend their technology.
  25. Energy Resolution: The United States federal government should substantially decrease the use of fossil fuels in the United States. Glass: This resolution really fiats solvency. You could increase incentives to research alternatives. You could decrease disincentives for fossil fuels. It would be good to hear from the topic authors to hear about the mechanisms or what the government can do. Gardinier: Where would incentives take the resolution to? Tax Relief? Glass: Yes…subsidies, etc. The government does many things to provide incentives for development. Author: You could do R&D on new sources of alternative energies. Ballingall: Is that all market-based now? Is there any federal policy to encourage nuclear power? Sferra: The whole process of license is to discourage it. Author: The USFG not providing any opportunity for disposal of nuclear waste also discourages development. Glass: Just to remind everyone, this was a huge problem in 1997-1998. All the debates were effects based. We could think of this as an opportunity to change that resolution. Ballingall: <Repeats the college topic from 2004-2005>. Glass: That’s not a good model. Ballingall: This is the question that I raised yesterday – if you require a reduction, does encouraging alternatives fall under the resolution? I don’t think so. Glass: That is why I like encouraging an alternative. You can give the negative the ground to tax fossil fuel, incentives bad. <Brief discussion missed> Author: I like David’s resolution, but I think “alternatives” is not what I want. Affs could do things like decreasing the speed limit. This resolution is currently worded to allow plastic fertilizers, which is fossil fuel based. Ballingall: That is why the college community included “energy policy.” Gardinier: I did a search on “tax energy incentives.” I found a database. When I did a search on tax incentives, the first three pages were incentives for fossil fuel reduction. <Missed discussion to get a coffee refill J> Glass: There is problem with even wording it “incentives to reducing the use of fossil fuels.” That is effects. Edwards: You have to promote alternatives or provide taxes/disincentives for fossil fuel use. McLain: We want the Affs to work on alternative energy uses. Why would we not put that in the resolution? Ballingall: Motion - “The USFG should establish a policy to promote the use of alternative energy sources in the United States.” I throw this out Glass: I prefer “promoting” versus “to promote” because of the effects question. Ballingall: I will take that as a friendly amendment. McLain: What about the word “sources”? Ballingall: That was in the original paper. I am not sure that is necessary. Author: I like having the word “sources”. We should do a term of art search on “sources” versus “resources”. Edwards: I would suggest a wording with “substantially increasing”. The USFG already does that. You have to push the Aff to do something. Kay: The word “promoting” bothers me. The USFG could just advertise, not just do it. <Reads definitions of “promoting”>. Glass: What I would suggest – what the government can do – The USFG should substantially increase incentives. Lietz: What about “alternative energy incentives”? Glass: I am putting together – The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Author: So in plan text if I gave federal tax incentives to do X, that is all I need to do. Lietz: This topic would have a lot of negative ground. Glass: The federal government bad args are all negative ground. Ballingall: I don’t think we have to worry about negative ground on the energy topic. Tate: I researched “alternative energy incentives” to see how it was statutorily used. A quick search is that Oklahoma Senate used that phrase, a NY Senator used that phrase in his platform. It is a term of art, even in governmental debate. Audience member: I am really concerned about “alternative energy”. It is “alternative” to what. I think it allows for a lot of bad cases…human energy, biorhythms. Kay: You can’t pair “resources” with “incentives”. Wooley: Other than tax breaks, what are other incentives? Ballingall: Direct funding, subsidies. Audience member: Is ethanol even included? Ballingall: I think we are out of time here. Can you come back at 1:30 and look at the phrase “alternative energy incentives”?
×
×
  • Create New...