Agriculture Open Thread
Use this link to discuss "Reforming U.S. Agricultural Policy" A Proposal to the CEDA Topic Committee.
Submitted by the Vanderbilt University Debate Team, specifically Bryan Grayson, Nick Brown, Cameron Norris & Phil Rappmund.
Submitted by the Vanderbilt University Debate Team, specifically Bryan Grayson, Nick Brown, Cameron Norris & Phil Rappmund.
I will have a more sustained post later. I just wanted to say I am very impressed with this topic paper, and am excited by this topic.
-Scu
Bing debate.
Reply to this
This topic is good.
Poverty, Environment, Global trade issues.
Policy and Kritik ground.
Stable, directional ground--the aff will NOT need to change when we get a new President.
I have seen this topic debated when a version of it was used in high school some years back--it was a GOOD topic--tons of great arguments.
Reply to this
A good domestic topic would be awesome. After having debated a huge foreign policy, I think it's time we discussed something in the U.S. Ag looks like an excellent way to do this - global impacts even though its domestic, and from the paper it looks like there's a diversity of both solvency mechanisms and advantages - what could be better? Plus the impacts look to be pretty big - doesn't seem like there will be lots of contrived big impact stories like their usually are on domestic topics. Plenty of aff flex. Plus, as someone already pointed out, affs won't have to do big shifts after the elections (which might be an issue for healthcare, I haven't read the paper yet). And there won't be a big States CP/USFG key debate as many domestic topics seem to turn into. Solid neg positions and pretty much guaranteed uniqueness and links plus some decent CPs. It seems like the case debates would be deep and developed. Plenty of critical and policy literature. Looks sweet to me.
-Blake
Reply to this
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074920.html
^^Lots of reasons I posted why ag is a sweet topic.
Reply to this
This topic is kinda cool. I very much agree with its direction (the substantive lit is massively aff biased, which may be necessary). But, um, I could've sworn we debated the exact same thing on the Europe topic. And I mean the EXACT same thing. Very few teams chose to run ag. I think there were a few good Emory teams running a version of it, and some Dartmouth folk. Fullerton interviewed some illegal immigrants who were working on a farm(and refused to specify their agent).
But that was it. You could say that shows we need to debate it again, or you could say that people just weren't very interested in it.
And Ag will still be current next year. And the year after that. And probably the year after that, too. Subsidies will not be cut any time in the foreseeable future.
If we're recycling old topics, let's be honest, the CTBT debates are MUCH cooler.
Reply to this
The controversy paper addresses all the concerns about overlap with Europe. The literature on agricultural subsidies goes far deeper than what was debated on the Europe topic. Plus, as you pointed out, there weren't all that many subsidies debates that happened, so I think the fear of topic overlap in this instance is overblown.
There is also an important element of timeliness to this topic. Congress is in the process of completing the 2007 Farm Bill, which will increase and expand many of the existing subsidy programs. This ensures that there is particularly good literature being written on the subject at present.
Also, CTBT debates aren't any more timely. The U.S. still hasn't ratified it and won't any time soon. The literature is pretty much the same. Some nonproliferation gurus just keep saying that the U.S. needs to ratify it to bolster the NPT's credibility and prevent a new wave of prolif.
One of the cool things about the ag topic is that it gives the aff a credible way to access lots of big environment and poverty impacts, rather than the same prolif and nuclear war impacts that you can get to on any topic.
Reply to this
More on the Europe question:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074990.html
Reply to this
Yeah, CTBT debates aren't any more timely. Just cooler. That's why everyone ran CTBT on the treaties topic, and very few people (I think you were one of them, and your aff was good) ran ag on the Europe topic, despite the fact that the aff lit for getting rid of subsidies is awesome. People had a chance to talk about getting rid of subsidies, and just weren't that interested in it. (I do think that the ag topic would be cool, but it has to be pretty high on the cool scale to turn down a chance at an arms control topic).
Reply to this
You know who has agriculture? Russia.
Reply to this
I agree....
Likewise, Russia seems to find its way into every topic, but we as a community have never intensively focused on such an important, well developed domestic policy area like agriculture.
Reply to this
Great - that's a good point as to why there could be a Russia advantage area/discussion on the ag topic.
Reply to this
To Nick and Cameron: Advantage/area discussion? Uhm, ok, Im game. Give it a shot? We've not had a Russia topic either, in spite of its dramatic significance to everything, including global agriculture. And, as I recall, there were at least 6 affs on last years constructive engagement topic that dealt with ag. The energy topic for sure had dramatic ag intersections. The Europe topic did as well. This argument is, frankly, sophomoric.
Finally, a comment. I think this paper looks better than it is in reality, especially relating to neg ground. The disads are all politics/econ, which are, literally, ensured on every topic in the history of debate. They are "the reasons things dont get done" and not "the reasons we choose topics". We should look for a central area of reasonable controversy over intrinsic disadvantages to the topic area, of which there are none unique to agricultural subsidies except the two most generic disads of all time. All of your remaining 12 econ disads are still, in the end, econ disads. So, thanks, but no thanks. Also, these CPs are weak at best. Conditions, no thanks. That CP is not competitive, and conditions CPs are literally inevitable on any topic not a uniquely educational or balancing function of this topic. Also, the nearly all cap on virtually any topic means that your "do less" CP prolly doesnt compete. No one is going to write into their plan a specific benchmark. Welcome to modern debate.
With these criticisms noted, the topic appears to be some aff suggestions with very little negative ground provided. In my mind, topics should start with some interests in negative ground and move later to the affs, not vice versa. I believe a lot of people feel similarly.
Reply to this
Response to above at:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074950.html
(too long to post here)
Reply to this
I think the bush/obama/clinton/mccain good disad on this topic is going to be too good. Unless the aff does something sheisty they probably won't be able to win much risk of a link turn:
Heidorn 04-
Rich farmers are a powerful lobby in American politics. In the last election, crop producers gave $11.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and they are likely to give much more by this November. So don’t be surprised that the GAO’s report won’t be taken too seriously on Capitol Hill. Farm subsidies are more than just payoffs for loaded, large landowners. They’re subsidies for elected officials, too.
not only this, but I am suspicious of the ability for "core" aff advantage ground to outweigh a big disad. Anything that can compete is something you get on any topic (relations, econ, etc)
don't get me wrong- i love the politics disad but i think neg ground will be too dependent on it because the substantive lit on subsidies is really aff-leaning, and the CP ground is ok, but not great.
Reply to this
To be upfront, haven't read the topic paper, finals week, but in response to Nathan:
Off hand I can think of at least one lobby (oil) that wouldn't mind so much if the Usfg were to do away with certain subsidies. Farm lobby > Oil Lobby, maybe, they've had the debate before, farm seems to win, but hey... you know debate, control the U, have some flaming cards, you can win a link turn.
But besides that, I dont think if one link to the politics DA is strong then the topic is not a good one to debate. Strengthening the link only gets you so far. Who do the "rich farmers" support now? I think thats an area up for grabs. Which lobbies "control" the key electoral states? Debatable.
soften the link, win link specific U on the farmers in question, and you can win a risk of a link turn I think.
Or just impact turn the damn thing... whatever happened to good debate?
Reply to this
My big concern for this topic is that the CP ground is TO good. Simply, my fear is that by mid-season the neg win percentage would be to high because the topic is to clear and precise as far as direction of topical action and the CP literature would yield to many net-benefits etc.
That said, I commend the Vandy folks for putting together a very good topic paper and fresh ideas to discuss and debate. I wouldn't mind debating/coaching on this topic, but my concern is troubling.
Reply to this
Hey Kris,
Hope the "off"-season ("off" in quotes since I realize you just churned out a big topic paper) is treating you well.
Your concern is interesting, since Jason Russell seems to be arguing the opposite on edebate. This suggests that the plan/counterplan solvency debates may be better than either side believes.
But anyway, the good thing about the ag topic is that the affirmative literature is highly focused on rescinding subsidies and is often comparative with regards to caps or other mechanisms. Now, there does exist comparative negative literature as well, but every affirmative should have solvency advocates who presuppose these policies. A well written affirmative would have advantages with evidence supporting structured in such a way that rescission or near rescission would be key.
Also, this is definitely a concern that could be taken up by the topic committee. Some of the resolutions in the topic paper provide more or less aff flex with how much they have to do, making some of these counterplans competitive and others not, depending on what wording wins.
As an aside, if there's any concern about aff flex vs. neg flex on this topic everyone should keep in my mind the way the ag literature is often structured. Affirmative solvency advocates tend to be single authors/institutes that make a complete argument with all the internal links. The negative literature, on the other hand, tends to require more piecing together of different authors to construct the story, though there does exist lots of negative evidence that makes complete arguments responding to those made by the affirmative solvency advocates.
Reply to this
I am sure that many of the people here don't care about specific and interesting critical ground (for both the aff and the neg), but I am going to talk about it anyway. This topic would allow people to access interesting literature on animals on both the aff and the neg. The literature is also very good and very timely. In Jan, Donna Haraway released a new book on animals. The last lectures of Derrida's life were on animals, and they were released in english just last week. Agamben has a very interesting book on animals (The Open), Deleuze and Guattari have published extensively on a notion of becoming-animal (with an amazing secondary literature on this question), Heidegger has several interesting essays and books on this subject. Besides these big names, there is an amazing literature base of smaller names that have books just recently that came out, or are coming out soon. Critical Animal Studies; with its attacks on humanism, human exceptionalism, and anthropocentrism; is very hot right now in critical literature. I know people only care about how timely a topic is in terms of what's in the news, as opposed what's timely in critical literature, but I think this would be a very timely topic in both senses.
-Scu
Reply to this
I posted a defense of the agriculture topic on edebate
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074986.html
Reply to this
Nick's post on edebate is insightful for a comparison of the ag topic with the proposed Russia topic:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074967.html
Reply to this
More cards for topic were posted to edebate. here's the link
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074999.html
Reply to this
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/075050.html
^^reasons on edebate i posted why ag is the best domestic topic, and some reasons why we should pick a domestic topic this year. it was too long to post here
Reply to this
Just wanted to warn people that as long as theory exists in the current realm in which it's debated, people will devolve the subsidies to the states and then have the states cut it.
I know this is absurd, but the point of my post is more of a comment against absurd theory debating. The argument that consult will be run on foreign policy topics is essentially the same as Lopez will be run on domestic topics.
It is time to have some serious discussions about counter-plan theory and especially counter-plan competition.
There are too many questionable competitive hyper-generic counter-plans that undermine the community's ability to debate topics in a specific manner that actually causes debates to take place on the educational nature of the topics.
I think good places to start are:
*To recognize that it is no longer too hard to be negative: the warrants for "neg flex" are pretty shallow right now.
*To create reciprocal FIAT with the AFF: If the Affirmative only uses one level of government/one country--there is a credible reason to think the NEG should be limited as well
*To continue to discuss what constitutes a "competitive" counter-plan. This was the final round of the NDT, and I think we should start arriving at a consensus on when a counterplan is a reason to reject the AFF. I have never thought Lopez competes, for example, and I think consult cp's could fall prey to infinite regression. Limiting NEG theory options forces more debates about the AFF.
Last comment, as a coach from a small school, we had a far easier time last year keeping up on the neg than the aff. We had pretty good strategies against a wide variety of affs, but had massive difficulties keeping up with all the negative options against AFF's.
I think the time has come to increase our standards on the negative and make them research a bit more specifically against AFF cases. The place to start is to ratchet up standards against hyper-generic counterplans that pretty much compete with "you used the USFG to do your plan."
RG
Reply to this
Ryan, I agree with a lot of what you said.
I think it's true that people will still run states. I guess I shouldn't have stated there will be "NO" states CP on the ag topic.
My point was merely the states CP will be a lot harder to win on the ag topic since it makes literally no logical sense, is technically impossible, and has no solvency advocates. People will still run it, but I feel some inherent qualities in the ag lit will prevent some of these CPs from winning.
Like I stated in my post, I think that's important, for a lot of the reasons you pointed out.
I agree- I don't think it's too hard to be negative. In fact, I think a neg bias essentially exists. I think there's also a substantial neg bias on CP theory. I think you raise important points about CP competition, but I think the reality of the status quo is that judges are unconfortable pulling the trigger against a CP on theory. I think a lot of the edebate discussion highlights this point. Many seem to be worried about "neg ground" and "neg flex." Few, in comparison, seem to be concerned about clear solvency advocates and good lit about the necessity of USFG action.
Seeing how that is the case, I think the ag topic is beneficial since it imposes some inherent hurdles to running these super-generic positions. I think the fact that the lit is lop-sided for the aff on the question of states, for example, will allow affs to win more CP debates and force negs to run more specific CPs and case arguments.
Reply to this
One other thing. I do agree there needs to be more discussion about CP competition. If there indeed exists a substantial neg bias and very low threshold for super-generics, we should be asking ourselves why we allow these arguments as a community.
Reply to this