2007-08 Topic Selection Committee Members

·       Gordon Stables, Chair & CEDA EC Rep

·       Darren Elliott, CEDA EC Rep

·       Ryan Galloway, At-Large Rep

·       Steve Mancuso, NDT Rep

·       Sean Lowry, Student Rep

·       Joe Patrice, CEDA EC Rep

·       Sue Peterson, At-Large Rep

·       Greta Stahl, At-Large Rep

·       Kelly Young, ADA Rep

·       Jarrod Atchison, Incoming At-Large Rep (term begins summer 08)

o   (Jarrod is attending the meetings in a support capacity. He is not a voting member at the summer 2008 meeting).

 The Topic Selection Committee will meet according to the following schedule. All sessions are being held at the University of Texas at Dallas. The sessions will be webcast (link forthcoming) and the community may leave input on the blog at www.blog.cedatopic.com

This schedule and agenda are the defaults unless adjusted by the committee. The committee may adjust the schedule to meet for longer in a session, but the committee must adjourn no later than 3 pm on Wednesday June 4.

Schedule

Monday – June 2

Morning Session                                               CEDA Business Meetings

Afternoon session (1 – 5 pm)                            Topic Selection Committee

Tuesday – June 3

Morning Session (9:30 am – noon)                    Topic Selection Committee

Afternoon Session (1:15 pm – 5:00 pm)            Topic Selection Committee

Wednesday – June 4

Morning Session (9:30 am – noon)                    Topic Selection Committee

Afternoon Session (1:15 pm – 3:00 pm)            Topic Selection Committee

Agenda

I.          Commissioning of Problem Areas for 09-10 Controversy Papers

Goal: The basic task of the committee is to commission a set of controversy papers for the next topic cycle. These items should reflect potential areas of promising debate and are only intended to provide a minimum number of options for the next topic cycle. There are no unique content restrictions (i.e., domestic only, legal only, etc.) for topic submissions for the 09-10 topic.

The following list is comprised of either recently written papers or other ideas suggested by community members.

·       Arms Control

·       Education

·       Genetic Engineering

·       Health Care

·       Global Infectious Disease

·       International Institutions (Focus on specific institution(s), perhaps even as the actor)

·       Labor Rights

·       Latin America ** (The committee will assign members to work with community volunteers to ensure this is a viable controversy ballot option)

·       Media centralization

·       Reparations

·       Russia

·       Urban Policy (Transportation, Housing, Education)

·       Others _____________________

II.        Developing resolutions to decrease agricultural subsidies in the United States.

A.        Procedural Notes

 1.         The constitutionally mandated task:

… the committee will report to the Executive Secretary no fewer than three resolutions corresponding to the winning topic area. The resolutions should be phrased so as to affirm the value of future and specific governmental change, and suggesting a broad but predictable array of potential affirmative plans.

2.         The Role of the Controversy Paper:

The wording that appeared on the first ballot, “Should the US decrease agricultural subsidies in the United States" functions as the parameters for the committee's work in wording a specific topic. This does not mean that these words are locked into a topic, but rather that the following controversies will serve as guiding precedents for our work. The basic topic concept and direction are the types of information you should regard as fixed in this controversy.

3.         The procedure for developing the resolutions:

The topic selection committee and volunteers were divided into three major sections to examine sections of the topic. Each group will present their findings and consider relevant terms in their area of research. As the committee considers each section of the topic research versions of potential wordings will be developed. This will be a gradual process as the specific controversies are discussed. We will also consider the role of the 2007 Farm Bill as a stand-alone consideration.

 For a specific resolution to appear on the ballot presented to the Executive Secretary it must be approved by a majority of the committee (There are nine members of the committee). The slate of resolutions approved by the committee at the adjournment of the meeting will be submitted to the executive secretary.

 B.        Elements of a reduced subsidies topic

1.         #1 Verb Choice

One of the Controversy paper authors, Bryan Grayson, effectively summarized the challenge of this first working group: “The appropriate verb - When drafting the resolutions in the controversy paper, we struggled with the appropriate verb to use. ¨Rescind¨, ¨substantially decrease¨, and ¨repeal¨ are all possibilities. ¨Rescind¨ worked relatively well on the Europe topic. The potential downside though is that there are some definitions of rescind that explicitly say it is a legislative action and it may not be desirable to lock the aff into defending Congress. Also, a determination must be made whether the aff should be forced to eliminate a subsidy completely or merely to reduce the current level of subsidization. I think the latter is probably the best option.”

Other community members have identified concerns about the degree of reduction (decrease vs. eliminate all) as well the particular mechanisms involved with any possible reduction. All of these efforts are being researched by a group led by Sue Peterson and supported by Kelly Young

#2 – Types of Subsidies

·       How generally should the concept of subsidies be operationalized?

·       What role should trade programs play in topic wordings?

Gordon Stables and Sean Lowry will lead this discussion.

#3 - Which commodities?

This element of the topic research was well-framed again by Bryan Grayson, “What subsidies to include - The affirmative could be given flexibility to cut virtually any subsidy it chooses or a resolution could simply list the subsidies with best literature.” Identifying significant elements of the topic literature among the different commodities offers this working group the chance to identify interesting wording options. The controversy paper, for example, mentioned one potential approach that would concentrate on commodities that have been recently experienced an expansion of subsidy support. Steve Mancuso is coordinating this work.

#4 - The 2007 Farm Bill

In addition to these working groups we also have one broad area of interest, the impact of the 2007 Farm Bill. The bill has yet to pass, but reviewing the legislation to avoid potential problems with wording options is a prudent step. Bryan Rubaie has provided important help on this subject.