Open Thread - 08-09 Controversy Papers
This thread is open for community feedback regarding potential controversy paper submissions for 08-09. All papers are due to the committee chair by Friday, April 18, 2008.
More information about the topic process is available.
More information about the topic process is available.
A test and a hope that those writing controversy papers keep the 2008 election in mind as they craft their papers. This may influence what controversies can best be debated this year.
RG
Reply to this
How do you see the election implicating the ability to debate proposed controversies?
Reply to this
I can see the election creating massive uniqueness difficulties for the negative after the election occurs.
For example, with regard to Latin America, the core Democratic position is either opposition to the free trade agreements with Latin America (part of the reason Penn resigned this week was his seemingly subversive support for a Colombian FTA in opposition to Clinton's stated rejection of such a proposal).
In the abstract, I think a good Latin America topic would be "increase labor and/or environmental restrictions" on free trade agreements in Latin America. However, I think that is likely a stance to be supported by a Democratic administration + Democratic Congress early on.
Meanwhile, McCain is an ardent free trader (can post cites if you need them).
The point is: this is a huge wild card for the 2008-2009 topic that does not usually exist. I can also see this influencing health care debates (Dems. will pass one quickly). It could also have implications for Russia (McCain is more ardently anti-Russia than Obama/Clinton). McCain has a famous line where he looked into Putin's eyes and saw the letters "K-G-B."
My point is not to try to tank one topic over another, but rather to ask those writing controversy papers to include a section on how the election could influence the topic. It may be that my Latin America concerns are exaggerated and/or we could move away from trade as an issue.
It may be that a Russia topic which embraced cooperation would embrace it on such a wide range of issues that McCain being president would be largely irrelevant. It also could be that McCain has changed his position after the recent Bucharest summit, where it seemed like Bush & Putin came out on far closer terms than before the summit. If one buys into McCain is towing Bush's line, that could be the case.
How does it affect other topics? I am not sure, as I have not done in-depth research on those questions. However, I would hope the authors of these controversy papers keep the 2008 election in mind, as it could have a tremendous impact on uniqueness for negative disads, and some risk that popular aff. plans might just be done.
Last note is that I don't think we can rely on the notion that "it looks like Obama/McCain will win." One thing that we learned from all the polling data and punditry in this election is how wrong it turned out to be. However, I could be just responding to:
-believing that Gore won Florida
-believing the exit polls that Kerry would win
-believing almost every published poll the day of the race that Obama would win New Hampshire by double-digits
It's just something to keep in mind as we move forward.
RG
Reply to this
The elections issue has been bothering for weeks. This is my primamry concern regardless of which topics are placed on the topic selection slate. I think this will be a major concern for topic area voters. I think, as a community, we have only two real options:
1) We pick a topic because it links directly into the elections process, but have predictable ground for the link debates. In other words, force the affirmative to support a policy that involves a major shift in the Republican Party/President's current commitment. Example, a resolution that would have, as a central case, the legalization of gay marriages;
2) The second choice is to have a topic that has big enough impacts to outwiegh an election disads. Unfortuantely, most domestic centered topics just cannot generate enough offense to overwhelm the risks of an international nuclear war (e.g. McCain victory means we first strike Iran). I would hate to see situations where the affirmative's only real offense is to be ready for the impact turn debates.
Reply to this
where do i go on this website to see who is doing what topic areas?
sorry--i don't see any of this.
Reply to this
Not a problem. The site for the current slate of projects is http://www.cedatopic.com/nexttopic.html
Reply to this
It seems like many are ignoring the previous post on edebate suggesting that the topic discussions be limited to this blog. It give the impression that only those that post on edebate are contributing to the topic selection process.
Reply to this
Is the expectation that a controversy paper have just harm areas or should it leave the reader with a direction of potential solutions. I'm a little unclear about the process.
Reply to this
Ede,
Thanks for the note. The controversy guidelines try to give folks some help in organizing their work. There is certainly a need for harm areas, especially those that provide unique educational opportunities, but we also ask authors to help begin the process of describing the types of solutions that affirmatives should consider. In this way the controversy moves from just a problem to the recognition that some general response is needed. The exact language is included below. Please let me know if this isn't clear.
Potential directions for wording papers – These controversial area papers are encouraged to include specific wording recommendations. The greatest value that authors can provide is preliminary analysis of the specific elements of this controversy. Is there a debate about the best level of governmental response? Is there a general direction that new policies should follow? Are there certain agencies or interested parties that define the terms in specific and meaningful ways? Authors should to try to outline the primary dimensions of this controversy, but should try to not provide more than five general types of proposed resolutions. The wording process can help identify the most precise phrase in a given context, but we need these essays to develop a larger context with some thematic coherence.
Thanks.
Gordon
Reply to this