3/19/2007 7:20 AM
Tom O'Gorman wrote:
I have a minor quibble with the inclusion of Afghanistan. It seems that the sort of core negative ground of engagement bad doesn't really work the same with Afghanistan as it does with the other group 1 countries given that the U.S. supports Afghanistan now.
4/4/2007 6:36 PMRoss wrote:
There is not a paper linked to this thread. Where is the topic paper?
4/17/2007 7:28 AM
Andrew Barnes wrote:
The topic paper points out that it learned from the "mistakes" of the China topic. I recall three problems, a "term of art" that had no real definition, many thought the resolution was too broad (essentially change a foreign policy to...), and bi-directionality (both hard line/soft line options for the aff).
I have only done some cursory searches but it seems that we may have the same term of art problem that we experienced before in that the term constructive engagement is frequently cited in the literature but does not seem to have a concrete definition. All definitions that I have found are contextual and change based on the country being discussed and those definitions change over time. This points to two issues: there is no definition that can be used for each country we might consider to be the "middle east" and there is no static definition for each country that can be applied over time. Therefore, as a limiting term, it seems fairly nebulous. Now, some people have argued that it implies a "quid pro quo". While this is an interesting interpretation, it carries baggage in that people have contextually discussed passive constructive engagement [no quid pro quo](human rights) and active constructive engagement [quid pro quo](trade) when the U.S. deals with China. I have not found any definitions for the middle east or countries listed in the topic paper on this question ... yet. However, active and passive understandings of constructive engagement problematize quid pro quo interpretations.
It also appears that this topic might be too broad. The topic paper notes that economic assistance is; private sector development, water resources, democracy and governance, health, community services, higher education, stabilization of populations, sustainable management of the environment and meeting humanitarian needs. Neither constructive engagement nor security guarantees/assistance seem to narrow plan action. I'm all for affirmative flexibility but can anyone explain to me how this topic might be more limited than it appears besides through a list of countries of course? Right now it seems as though we have selected "change a foreign policy to the Middle East".
4/17/2007 7:29 AM
Andrew Barnes wrote:
Finally, I'm concerned that the wording in the topic paper is not sufficient to solve the problem of bi-directionality if, we as a community adopt an interpretation that constructive engagement is a quid pro quo. Now, this is just a simple thought experiment to me but it seems that the affirmative could offer a plan of economic assistance and security guarantees based on x action of Iran, implying of course that both economic assistance and the security guarantees of the plan are null and void if Iran does not comply. The aff could then read the following advantage; a. Iran says no to the quid pro quo, b. U.S. attacks Iran, c. Attack Iran Good. I understand that this might not be strategic but it does point to directional issues for this topic as well that have the possibility for implicating negative ground.
I point out these three things out not to bemoan the topic selection of the community (although I was hoping for prolif ) or to take jabs at Steve and Mike but rather to start addressing issues early so as to not repeat the "overrule" problem that we had last year. I am confident that we can work these issues out and I will be working hard to do so with the topic committee this summer but I do think input and discussion of these issues before the topic committee meets would be helpful.
4/17/2007 7:59 AM
edlee wrote:
First, thanks to Steve and Maffie for an excellent paper. They have provided the foundation for an excellent topic.
My primary concern at the moment is the potential use "and/or economic assistance." This allows the aff to limit their constructive engagement to "economic assistance." Unfortunately, this term is just a budgetary category and does not serve a limiting function. The AFF can allocated money to remedy any harm in one of the listed countries. Money for election monitoring, disease prevention, water desalination, poverty reduction, etc. etc. are all topical.
This provides a massive incentive for AFF to avoid the security guarantee side of the topic. They will also be in a better position to have specific link turns to leverage against generic link evidence.
We should consider forcing the AFF to debate the security guarantee side of the resolution or finding a more limiting term if we want the AFF to have some options. e
4/18/2007 2:31 AM
gf wrote:
i can see where economic assistance side of the topic could get big, but an aff will need a good "U.S. key" arg which seems it would limit out many of the random funding allocation affs. the security side of the topic would seem a lot more defensible against agent counterplans.
4/19/2007 1:43 PM
Whit Whitmore wrote:
I posted about this in the CE forum, but I feel that the Security Guarantee aspect of the topic should be the focus of most of our debates. I would not like the economic assistance topic that Ed warns about. Is it possible to create a wording that contains only security guarantees? It seems that some of our security guarantees to other countries have involved forms of assistance (I'm thinking of oil and heating fuel for North Korea). So just saying security guarantees would not prevent the affirmative from giving aid/assistance, but would force it to be relevant to the security guarantee aspect. This also seems to resolve some of the concerns about the phrase "Constructive Engagement." Once you have limited the resolution to one form of CE, it is no longer necessary to include the phrase.
4/19/2007 4:37 PM
Ryan wrote:
I posted this to the topic committee earlier, but here are some thoughts about constructive engagement and economic assistance.
One aside: I'm disappointed that people seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at things from the negative perspective (Barnes, Lee, and Whit all look at this from the perspective that it would be too hard to be neg.)
I think this is an outmoded way of thinking. The boilerplate judge philosophy is "I err NEG on ALL theory questions." We should look out more for the AFF Aff's will have several hurdles to overcome no matter what the topic is. The new stock issues are: 1) T: judges are really tough on it. 3 elims at the NDT that I know of won on T. 2) PIC's: Better have a strong US key warrant and a reason why this should either be constructive engagement (both words) or security guarantees (both words). 3) Politics Disad: Judges err neg. on risk analysis. Given that the AFF's extinction impact hasn't happened yet, the NEG can win an immediate time frame risk of extinction, when the AFF. has a hard time competing on either the TF or magnitude level. 4) Circle K. Even "policy" judges vote on it all the time. And if you meet all 4 legs of the modern table, your table might still be a bad idea for those that do specific research.
Anyway, here are my earlier thoughts:
-The question of "constructive engagement" versus "engagement." I know Steve addresses this issue in the topic paper to some degree, but I'm concerned about the idea that constructive engagement in the topic allows for the "engagement cp" that does the plan without the word "constructive," with the argument being that constructive engagement is quid pro quo, or has historical ties to US acquiescence in the face of apartheid in South Africa. I would like to see if Steve's concernes about the notion that "we could ENGAGE in an attack on Iran, etc." are justified in the literature by researching the question of "a policy of engagement," etc. Basically, I don't want a one word lame PIC in the topic and I'm wondering if "constructive engagement" in the resolution is better than "policy of engagement."
-The question of the phrase "economic assistance." I share Ed Lee's concern about this phrase, but from the opposite perspective. I'm worried that people will win the T debate that economic assistance means a budgetary category, and counterplan with another budgetary category and win a trade-off disad within that budget. Powers & Quinn went 5-0 on the Negative as late as Northwestern on the development assistance topic with the strategy of "T: you aren't the budget" and "Counterplan: do the entire plan but out of the humanitarian assistance budget instead" net benefits: development K, and development assistance trade-off da within the budget. If people thought the constitutional amendment cp had no answers, there just isn't literature defending what budgetary category something should be fundedunder
4/20/2007 7:11 AM
edlee wrote:
I agree with many of Ryan's point as far as far as theory and fiat bias is concerned. THe community's response to this years topic has radically changed my perspective on these issues.
I am on record incorrectly predicting that we would not embrace a rigid interpretation of "overrule" and would allow the AFF some flexibility for innovation and to deal with the distinguish and amendment. This inspired my opposition to increasing the number of cases beyond 7.
My concern is not so much with neg ground as the type of research we incentivize on the AFF and NEG with the resolution. It is more of an education than a fairness concern. How do we tailor the resolution to encourage more Neg research that directly challenges the 1AC?
My previous post derives from this concern. Some would say that the assumption that limits on the AFF's mechanism will encourage "case debates" is false. See Court's topic. I find this argument somewhat persuasive. If it is correct that life is far to easy for the Neg and the topic committee is the only protector of "AFF ground" in the world of judging bias that leaning heavily towards the neg then expanding the amount of explicitly topical options for the AFF makes some sense. I am not sure if this sufficiently deals with all of my research concerns. However, there is an argument to be made that in the world in which there are multiple good AFFs with "US key" warrants to choose from the neg would be forced to find counterplan and neg case options that are more germane to the literature.
e
4/20/2007 8:08 AM
Whit Whitmore wrote:
It seems that my idea of removing "constructive engagement" and "economic assistance" would solve the concerns with overly generic strategies that Ryan talks about. The two pics he isolates rely on use of the terms of art in the resolution. If the res only says "security guarantees," then those CPs are no longer viable. Even if the plan gives assistance, the budget is no longer resolutionally mandated, and few (if any) AFFs will commit to the phrase constructive engagement if the res doesn't force them too (especially since there is suposedly a dearth of literature on that phrase in relation to the middle east).
A security guarantee focused resolution would place increased burdens on the negative in terms of generics. Alternate countries/organizations are unlikely to be able to supply the same type of guarantees as the U.S. The unique position vis a vis the rest of the world and especially Israel will make the U.S. key cards for security guarantees high quality. If Iran is afraid the U.S. is going to attack them, a promise not to commit troops by the EU isn't going to cut it. Plus the intangibility of something like security means the solvency debates for the both the plan and counterplan will be much deeper than those that occur with something like assistance.
A note on the potential "exclude 'security'" PIC: I don't think many teams will run this. The net benefit is likely the security K. Teams will not have a problem winning links to the security K on this topic. If anything, the CP would be a step back for those teams, because the only net benefitial links they can generate are off the word 'security' itself, not to mention the way it hamstrings/eliminates the alternative. I think teams will opt for greater flexibility in making alternative and link arguments by running security as a more traditional K rather than a 'dirty word' PIC.
4/20/2007 9:21 PM
Kelly Young wrote:
Yeah, my concern about "economic assistance" is probably similar to Walt here. It's not that it's an unlimiting term as much as probably not highly defensible ground for the aff, especially against different budget or actor CPs. If we are committed to increasing AFF flex, then let's make sure that the ground we include is defensible.
What about a different development or economic assistance term, like reconstruction assistance (for afghanistan and lebanon) or increased trade relations (Iran, Syria)? This allows for flexibility in choosing reconstruction assistance or broad or limited trade relations. I have really no idea if reconstruction assistance is a true term of art, but a few hits so far appear in relation to afghanistan and Lebanon. This combined with security guarantees seems to maintain much of the original controversy aff ideas and avoids some of the previously discussed problems. While reconstruction assistance might still be easily cp'ed, trade relations might generate some more defensible ground.
I have a minor quibble with the inclusion of Afghanistan. It seems that the sort of core negative ground of engagement bad doesn't really work the same with Afghanistan as it does with the other group 1 countries given that the U.S. supports Afghanistan now.
There is not a paper linked to this thread. Where is the topic paper?
Thanks for the keen eye Ross. I have corrected the link above. The Middle East paper is also directly available at http://www.cedatopic.com/Middle_East_07.pdf
The topic paper points out that it learned from the "mistakes" of the
China topic. I recall three problems, a "term of art" that had no real
definition, many thought the resolution was too broad (essentially
change a foreign policy to...), and bi-directionality (both hard
line/soft line options for the aff).
I have only done some cursory searches but it seems that we may have the
same term of art problem that we experienced before in that the term
constructive engagement is frequently cited in the literature but does
not seem to have a concrete definition. All definitions that I have
found are contextual and change based on the country being discussed and
those definitions change over time. This points to two issues: there is
no definition that can be used for each country we might consider to be
the "middle east" and there is no static definition for each country
that can be applied over time. Therefore, as a limiting term, it seems
fairly nebulous. Now, some people have argued that it implies a "quid
pro quo". While this is an interesting interpretation, it carries
baggage in that people have contextually discussed passive constructive
engagement [no quid pro quo](human rights) and active constructive
engagement [quid pro quo](trade) when the U.S. deals with China. I have
not found any definitions for the middle east or countries listed in the
topic paper on this question ... yet. However, active and passive
understandings of constructive engagement problematize quid pro quo
interpretations.
It also appears that this topic might be too broad. The topic paper
notes that economic assistance is; private sector development, water
resources, democracy and governance, health, community services, higher
education, stabilization of populations, sustainable management of the
environment and meeting humanitarian needs. Neither constructive
engagement nor security guarantees/assistance seem to narrow plan
action. I'm all for affirmative flexibility but can anyone explain to me
how this topic might be more limited than it appears besides through a
list of countries of course? Right now it seems as though we have
selected "change a foreign policy to the Middle East".
Finally, I'm concerned that the wording in the topic paper is not
sufficient to solve the problem of bi-directionality if, we as a
community adopt an interpretation that constructive engagement is a quid
pro quo. Now, this is just a simple thought experiment to me but it
seems that the affirmative could offer a plan of economic assistance and
security guarantees based on x action of Iran, implying of course that
both economic assistance and the security guarantees of the plan are
null and void if Iran does not comply. The aff could then read the
following advantage; a. Iran says no to the quid pro quo, b. U.S.
attacks Iran, c. Attack Iran Good. I understand that this might not be
strategic but it does point to directional issues for this topic as well
that have the possibility for implicating negative ground.
I point out these three things out not to bemoan the topic selection of
the community (although I was hoping for prolif
Steve and Mike but rather to start addressing issues early so as to not
repeat the "overrule" problem that we had last year. I am confident that
we can work these issues out and I will be working hard to do so with
the topic committee this summer but I do think input and discussion of
these issues before the topic committee meets would be helpful.
First, thanks to Steve and Maffie for an excellent paper. They have provided the foundation for an excellent topic.
My primary concern at the moment is the potential use "and/or economic assistance." This allows the aff to limit their constructive engagement to "economic assistance." Unfortunately, this term is just a budgetary category and does not serve a limiting function. The AFF can allocated money to remedy any harm in one of the listed countries.
Money for election monitoring, disease prevention, water desalination, poverty reduction, etc. etc. are all topical.
This provides a massive incentive for AFF to avoid the security guarantee side of the topic. They will also be in a better position to have specific link turns to leverage against generic link evidence.
We should consider forcing the AFF to debate the security guarantee side of the resolution or finding a more limiting term if we want the AFF to have some options.
e
i can see where economic assistance side of the topic could get big, but an aff will need a good "U.S. key" arg which seems it would limit out many of the random funding allocation affs. the security side of the topic would seem a lot more defensible against agent counterplans.
I posted about this in the CE forum, but I feel that the Security Guarantee aspect of the topic should be the focus of most of our debates. I would not like the economic assistance topic that Ed warns about. Is it possible to create a wording that contains only security guarantees? It seems that some of our security guarantees to other countries have involved forms of assistance (I'm thinking of oil and heating fuel for North Korea). So just saying security guarantees would not prevent the affirmative from giving aid/assistance, but would force it to be relevant to the security guarantee aspect. This also seems to resolve some of the concerns about the phrase "Constructive Engagement." Once you have limited the resolution to one form of CE, it is no longer necessary to include the phrase.
I posted this to the topic committee earlier, but here are some thoughts about constructive engagement and economic assistance.
One aside: I'm disappointed that people seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at things from the negative perspective (Barnes, Lee, and Whit all look at this from the perspective that it would be too hard to be neg.)
I think this is an outmoded way of thinking. The boilerplate judge philosophy is "I err NEG on ALL theory questions." We should look out more for the AFF Aff's will have several hurdles to overcome no matter what the topic is. The new stock issues are: 1) T: judges are really tough on it. 3 elims at the NDT that I know of won on T. 2) PIC's: Better have a strong US key warrant and a reason why this should either be constructive engagement (both words) or security guarantees (both words). 3) Politics Disad: Judges err neg. on risk analysis. Given that the AFF's extinction impact hasn't happened yet, the NEG can win an immediate time frame risk of extinction, when the AFF. has a hard time competing on either the TF or magnitude level. 4) Circle K. Even "policy" judges vote on it all the time. And if you meet all 4 legs of the modern table, your table might still be a bad idea for those that do specific research.
Anyway, here are my earlier thoughts:
-The question of "constructive engagement" versus "engagement." I
know Steve addresses this issue in the topic paper to some degree, but
I'm concerned about the idea that constructive engagement in the topic
allows for the "engagement cp" that does the plan without the word
"constructive," with the argument being that constructive engagement
is quid pro quo, or has historical ties to US acquiescence in the face
of apartheid in South Africa. I would like to see if Steve's
concernes about the notion that "we could ENGAGE in an attack on Iran,
etc." are justified in the literature by researching the question of
"a policy of engagement," etc. Basically, I don't want a one word
lame PIC in the topic and I'm wondering if "constructive engagement"
in the resolution is better than "policy of engagement."
-The question of the phrase "economic assistance." I share Ed Lee's
concern about this phrase, but from the opposite perspective. I'm
worried that people will win the T debate that economic assistance
means a budgetary category, and counterplan with another budgetary
category and win a trade-off disad within that budget. Powers & Quinn
went 5-0 on the Negative as late as Northwestern on the development
assistance topic with the strategy of "T: you aren't the budget" and
"Counterplan: do the entire plan but out of the humanitarian
assistance budget instead" net benefits: development K, and
development assistance trade-off da within the budget. If people
thought the constitutional amendment cp had no answers, there just
isn't literature defending what budgetary category something should be
fundedunder
I agree with many of Ryan's point as far as far as theory and fiat bias is concerned. THe community's response to this years topic has radically changed my perspective on these issues.
I am on record incorrectly predicting that we would not embrace a rigid interpretation of "overrule" and would allow the AFF some flexibility for innovation and to deal with the distinguish and amendment. This inspired my opposition to increasing the number of cases beyond 7.
My concern is not so much with neg ground as the type of research we incentivize on the AFF and NEG with the resolution. It is more of an education than a fairness concern. How do we tailor the resolution to encourage more Neg research that directly challenges the 1AC?
My previous post derives from this concern. Some would say that the assumption that limits on the AFF's mechanism will encourage "case debates" is false. See Court's topic. I find this argument somewhat persuasive. If it is correct
that life is far to easy for the Neg and the topic committee is the only protector of "AFF ground" in the world of judging bias that leaning heavily towards the neg then expanding the amount of explicitly topical options for the AFF makes some sense. I am not sure if this sufficiently deals with all of my research concerns. However, there is an argument to be made that in the world in which there are multiple good AFFs with "US key" warrants to choose from the neg would be forced to find counterplan and neg case options that are more germane to the literature.
e
It seems that my idea of removing "constructive engagement" and "economic assistance" would solve the concerns with overly generic strategies that Ryan talks about. The two pics he isolates rely on use of the terms of art in the resolution. If the res only says "security guarantees," then those CPs are no longer viable. Even if the plan gives assistance, the budget is no longer resolutionally mandated, and few (if any) AFFs will commit to the phrase constructive engagement if the res doesn't force them too (especially since there is suposedly a dearth of literature on that phrase in relation to the middle east).
A security guarantee focused resolution would place increased burdens on the negative in terms of generics. Alternate countries/organizations are unlikely to be able to supply the same type of guarantees as the U.S. The unique position vis a vis the rest of the world and especially Israel will make the U.S. key cards for security guarantees high quality. If Iran is afraid the U.S. is going to attack them, a promise not to commit troops by the EU isn't going to cut it. Plus the intangibility of something like security means the solvency debates for the both the plan and counterplan will be much deeper than those that occur with something like assistance.
A note on the potential "exclude 'security'" PIC: I don't think many teams will run this. The net benefit is likely the security K. Teams will not have a problem winning links to the security K on this topic. If anything, the CP would be a step back for those teams, because the only net benefitial links they can generate are off the word 'security' itself, not to mention the way it hamstrings/eliminates the alternative. I think teams will opt for greater flexibility in making alternative and link arguments by running security as a more traditional K rather than a 'dirty word' PIC.
Yeah, my concern about "economic assistance" is probably similar to Walt here. It's not that it's an unlimiting term as much as probably not highly defensible ground for the aff, especially against different budget or actor CPs. If we are committed to increasing AFF flex, then let's make sure that the ground we include is defensible.
What about a different development or economic assistance term, like reconstruction assistance (for afghanistan and lebanon) or increased trade relations (Iran, Syria)? This allows for flexibility in choosing reconstruction assistance or broad or limited trade relations. I have really no idea if reconstruction assistance is a true term of art, but a few hits so far appear in relation to afghanistan and Lebanon. This combined with security guarantees seems to maintain much of the original controversy aff ideas and avoids some of the previously discussed problems. While reconstruction assistance might still be easily cp'ed, trade relations might generate some more defensible ground.
I dunno. Just my 2 cents.