Friday, June 8, 2007
![From http://blog.cedatopic.com/2007/05/23/current-slate-of-resolutions.aspx
Final Balllot of Resolutions
#1
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a security guarantee(s) and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance.
#2
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance.
#3
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral
security guarantee(s).
#4
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance.

<== Gordon Stables, CEDA Topic Committee chair
Comments
• 5/23/2007 10:37 AM
• Chris Thiele wrote:
Two questions.
1) Does "include" require the affirmative to do more than a security guarentee / foreign assistance (see my post in End of Day 2 assignments)? This "choice" thing doesn't seem to be supported by dictionary definitions.
2) Dual readings for #1 & #4: after trying to diagram the second independent clause, it occured to me that it could mean "should consist of / include foreign assistance", not necessarily "should consist of / include offering them foreign assistance" as "offering them" could be read to either applying to the first direct object (security guarentee) only, or both (security guarentee and/or foreign assistance).
Now how does this pan out? Given that US Code says "'foreign assistance' means any ... item provided ... to a foreign country or international organization", the second part could be gramatically read to allow FA to other countries or int orgs within a country. Especially since "include" means "in addition to".
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 10:52 AM
• anonymous wrote:
There are serious grammatical problems with a number of these. Also, thanks to whoever made sure the domestic topic was limited to 4 cases, while ensuring that the nebulous phrasing of the big-stick policy topic would allow almost any Policy affirmative you could dream of. Thanks.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 2:00 PM
• confused wrote:
These topics are just weird. The wording makes the whole concept more confusing, not less. P.S. why are we trying to limit the aff's when the aff win rate is down? I guess we like a world where all we do is negate.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 2:39 PM
• Anonymous wrote:
This is looking to be the worst resolution ever crafted.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 6:25 PM
• Andrea wrote:
While I appreciate the work put into crafting these possible resolutions, they are all terribly confusing, grammatically impossible, and contain far too many parts. Why don't we go for something simpler?
Seriously, people, I DO NOT want to listen to grammar debates all year.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 7:46 PM
• Kelly Young wrote:
Hi Anonymous, Confused and Andrea:
Seriously, we spent an evening and half a day just covering the grammatical structure of these resolutions with Chairs of Departments of English and book editors to ensure that the grammar of these resolutions are correct. Watch the webcast of the last day of the committee meeting to see--ever grammar choice was intentionally made to HELP the affirmative, not screw them on topicality. OUR SOLE PURPOSE was that you did have to listen to bad grammar Ts all year. Of course, we also agreed that if teams could not answer some of the more idiotic grammar arguments, then that was a problem that we could not fix.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 7:51 PM
• Kelly Young wrote:
Someone said:
There are serious grammatical problems with a number of these. Also, thanks to whoever made sure the domestic topic was limited to 4 cases, while ensuring that the nebulous phrasing of the big-stick policy topic would allow almost any Policy affirmative you could dream of. Thanks.
WTF? You really thought a ME topic could be domestic in some way? We actually had a lengthy discussion on Day 2 and 3 that we thought that a couple of the resolutions were way too small. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by either "domestic" or "allow almost anything possible." Nebulous claims are equally hard to respond to.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 7:51 PM
• Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, but there is NO way this year is not going to be taken over by ridiculous T/procedural debates. Could there possibly be more "and/or" statements involved?
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 7:55 PM
• I hate anonymous posts wrote:
Someone said:
This is looking to be the worst resolution ever crafted.
I say: wow, the first lesson of debate is that a claim is rather useless without a warrant. I would suggest looking back to history to the EU topic, China topic etc for some of the worst topics ever. Yes, the wording is a bit awkward, but they are awkward solely to give the aff a fighting chance. Offer a reason why this is the worse topic ever and maybe someone could offer a response.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 8:23 PM
• I still hate anoymous posts wrote:
Someone said:
I'm sorry, but there is NO way this year is not going to be taken over by ridiculous T/procedural debates. Could there possibly be more "and/or" statements involved?
Oh I suppose the committee could have included another 10-20 And/Or phrasings. Did you have a better solution to ensure that the aff did not have to defend giving sec guarantees to EVERY nation or defend both sec guarantees AND foreign assistance on some of the topics? What is worse: some awkward wording or screwing the aff from the beginning of the year on non-solvency. Perhaps last year was a good lesson that some different wording structure is better for the aff. SHOCKINGLY, if you compare the lit to the wording, it is very good for the affirmative. If you cant beat stupid procedural arguments, that is an entirely different problem.
Reply to this
• 5/23/2007 8:38 PM
• I hate myself as an anoymous poster wrote:
Seriously, there were 15-17 topic committee reports released on issues of wording and grammar. What in the hell was the big surprise at the end? The committee even posted the research questions and problems they were facing each day yet I saw none of you posting complaints on any of those days.
Reply to this
• 5/24/2007 12:43 AM
• Scott wrote:
"it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee"
I get that the topic committee is trying to avoid multi-actor fiat (or, at least, that's the only justification I can come up with for this wording), but this seems to open up "[Nation] won't accept the agreement" arguments. The entire point of fiat is that we can assume plan passes and then debate about the merits of that.
With this wording, it would be possible for aff's to lose on - effectively - "Plan won't pass." Or if not lose the round, lose almost all solvency so they can't weigh case.
Reply to this
1. 5/24/2007 6:41 AM
2. Tom O'Gorman wrote:
I think it certainly does open up the ground to X won't accept - but don't see why thats a problem. The heart of the controversy is whether a nice "CE" approach will work - fiating that the countries accept the security guarantee cuts out that debate - leaving very very little to debate, and very aff biased ground - you really want to debate that Iran accepting a U.S. security guarantee is bad?
Also if you're really worried that the X will say no arg is so strong you could also build advantages off of U.S. soft power/relations with Europe increasing - when the U.S. is seen to take a more reasonable approach; e.g. if Iran says no to a generous offer from the U.S. then EU/China/Russia will help isolate it.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Reply to this
• 5/24/2007 6:40 AM
• myost wrote:
Scott-
This is solved by people only running affs where they have solvency evidence that "country X" will accept trilateral security guarantees. No smart aff would write a case without solvency...
Reply to this
• 5/24/2007 10:35 AM
• Comrade Ben wrote:
Scott- wrote:
"No smart aff would write a case without solvency..."
Most aff's will have solvency it's a matter of how believable it is. If an aff intended make a security agreement with Iran or Afghanistan in the current political climate it will be extremely easy for the neg to take out the solvency. The resolution opens up affs to solvency deficits, take outs and the most crucial solvency turns
Reply to this
1. 5/29/2007 6:25 PM
2. c. marr wrote:
Islamic fundamentalism easily raises the paradox in any solvency to constructive engagement. reality already is dead bodies in streets of Bagdad. the wooly mammoth of attitudinal inherency sticks its tusk into this line
Reply to this
• 5/24/2007 3:22 PM
• Lindsey Lathrop wrote:
Lindsey
why not just:
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria.
?
Reply to this
1. 5/28/2007 10:14 PM
2. massai wrote:
I agree with Lindsey.
Its not rocket science!
These are ugly at first sight, gramattically ($) correct or not.
Reply to this
• 5/25/2007 2:27 PM
• Frodo wrote:
"The resolution opens up affs to solvency deficits, take outs and the most crucial solvency turns"
DAMN YOU TOPIC COMMITTEE, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!! How DARE you write a topic that allows for rich case debate!?!?!? I demand shitty politics stories and CPs as the only options for the neg....
Reply to this
1. 5/31/2007 3:27 PM
2. Comrade Ben wrote:
"How DARE you write a topic that allows for rich case debate!?!?!? I demand shitty politics stories and CPs as the only options for the neg"
Your definition of rich case debate is aff fiating its solvency and those ever prevalent forever repetitive fiat abuse stories versus "enriching the quality of Debate" bottom line the debate will center around ridiculous framework and theory arguments so kiss your solvency T/o evidence goodbye.
Reply to this
• 5/29/2007 6:33 PM
• anon wrote:
I dont think the resolutions are complicated. To me, its like an ice cream sundae. You choose the ice cream, which is the country/area (Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, etc.). Then you choose the toppings, which includes the "offers" (foreign assistance, trilateral security guarantee with Israel, etc.). Naturally, your plan can have more than one scoop of ice cream and more than one topping.
Assuming you only choose one country and one "offer," you get 10 plans for #1, 15 plans for #2, 14 plans for #3, and 15 plans for #4.
The "should include" and "consist only of" phrases seem to expand the topic area for the aff in the former while limiting in the latter.](8_USA_POLICY_DEBATE_ANNOUNCES_2007-08_TOPICS_FOR_BALLOTING_files/shapeimage_2.png)
Friday, June 8, 2007