Resources updated
Thanks to Michael Miller for posting so many great resources here and on debate cooperative. I’ve updated the resources section of this site to include places to help you research for this year. If you come across any good sites please post them here. (If you are looking for Cuba resources click here).
NOTE: I’m not looking for individual articles but instead comprehensive places where people can find lots of articles throughout the year for a variety of different cases. Individual articles may or may not be helpful for everyone but sites would help everyone. Thanks!
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Just a thought (and borrowing from my experiences in judging Parli debate): the topic does not (as Will Chamberlain has so insightfully noted) have the word “its” in it.
As such, in a purely technical sense, although the USFG is designated as the agent of action, the site (“situs” for you legalese lovers) of the “domestic transportation infrastructure” to be “substantially reformed” is not specified.
Can you envision someone running a case/plan in which the Affirmative
advocates reforming the domestic transportation infrastructure of some country other than the USA? Iraq or Afghanistan, for example (to help defeat terrorism)? Or maybe Mexico (to eliminate the drug cartels and/or to control illegal immigration)?
Given all the “politix” arguments which purport to link to Obama’s “political capital,” the article below is a must-read which ought to be filed away for future reference:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_an/us_obama_congress_analysis
I think in this case framer’s intent checks back. We have a topic paper to show us intent and trying to step outside of the domestic Topic area would be kinda fubar, imo. People who do that will be looked at as punks by a lot of people and will have critics against them from the start of the 1nc. As someone who likes to run odd cases I think it doesn’t work as well within the realm of nfa-ld as it does ceda/ndt/parli.
I’m obviously playing Devil’s Advocate here, but: (1) Not everyone is impressed with the “Framers’ Intent” standard for T (including me), and especially in this environment; (2) The topic paper merely indicates that the topic area is “transportation.” It doesn’t say what kind of transportation, nor does it specify where the transportation is supposed to operate.
I wouldn’t run – or coach – a case involving non-U.S. transportation. But then again, I wouldn’t run – or coach – a case saying that an American invasion of Cuba is “Constructive Engagement,” either. Forewarned is forearmed.
I had thought about whether USFG can go reform another country’s domestic transportation infrastructure with the topic as well. However, I think it comes back to word reform. Can you reform someone else? Can the USFG reform another country’s transportation infrastructure? I think one can probably only reform themselves, thus limiting what can be reformed under the topic.
It does seem like an oversight on the part of the Framers. Technically you could run a plan wherein you reform (which basically means to change for the sake of improvement) someone else’s transportation infrastructure. I guess it only takes on debater to run it and one judge to vote for it. It is true that the Invade Cuba plan, and Mike Marse is still in India for this week so maybe he’ll chime in later, was deemed Topical several times. In fact, the case went undefeated in the first tournament, and I think then some. While that seemed more blatant, in that the ideology went against the notion of “constructive engagement” as defined in the literature, this situation is based upon the omission (or oversight) of the word “its”. Unless the Resolution is amended, I see no reason why plans of this nature would not be Topical (on face).
In light of the fact that many of the LD debaters come from Parli(and the judges), where people make up their own definitions, I think we should not only be prepared but expect it. We may want to create one during the camp and test it out during the year. It would definitely make the year more interesting, and we leave the debate up to the debaters. Afterall, a plan is only non-topical after the Negative makes the argument in the debate and wins it.
Cases like this do make debate fun but they are also why ‘we’ don’t do case specific research as the opp as much. I do have a life outside of forensics; if any of my friends heard me say that they wouldn’t believe me.
What that means is we do not have access to the amount of research to prep out neg strats for these kinds of cases and we do not have the ability to deal with them without our generic K’s and our awesome T violations.
While framer’s intent may not be that keen for many people it really does imply that this topic should be about domestic infrastructure. Don’t kill small school programs. If I have to face “Build roads in Kenya” or some shit like that I will have to remove myself from the event. Our school does not have the budget for me to lose every time I enter into an event (if a lot of teams will run reform in x country that stands to lose 1/2 your rounds as long as people start running different countries which means I don’t break, not from lack of effort but from an unlimited interpretation of the resolution) and I do not have time to gather research on transportation infrastructure and US intervention in (X) country. We talk about collapse of events as a voter on T but it really is a ‘real-world’ impact.
I do not advocate that every case is on face topical. However, I hope that when people are crafting their aff strats this year they are not trying to squirrel away from debate but they are trying to squirrel into debate. Suicide T will become a community norm because ‘we’ have to do something else. I feel that it is an attempt to run from debate. This would be staved off if there was a case list, though… but that already got shot dead.
Remember, in So-cal, how few schools do LD. Remember how few people from those schools do LD. This topic already put some people to sleep, which is unfortunate because it has grown on me. Let us not exclude participation in this event. So, if you are going to run a crazy case like that save it for out rounds, lol.
Given the research that I did (never used, BTW) on the Sub-Saharan Africa topic, I know that there is a ton of evidence floating around indicating that one of the major causes of human death and misery in SSA is lack of adequate transportation infrastructure. It would be a stretch, but not an impossible one, to argue for some kind of American-sponsored infrastructure development program in SSA, or any other part of the 3rd/4th World. The United States, after all, long tried to “reform” the internal racial policies of certain African countries; I see nothing in theory which would prevent infrastructure development assistance from being characterized as being a method of promoting “reform.”
Please understand – this is not an interpretation of the topic that I advocate; but it is an interpretation of the topic that a good debater should be ready for. And when outstanding debaters like Will Chamberlain are complaining that this topic only seems to talk about “building a bridge and dredging a canal,” you can bet that creative people are going to find a way to spice it up.
All this strikes me as ironic, because my very first thought when I saw this topic is that it is perfect for debating one of the “solutions” to climate change. (This is an interpretation I’ll discuss in depth at the Clinic.) Different strokes for different folks.
Another good general resource:
“Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure for Global Competitiveness”
http://www.infrastructure2009.com/2009-Infrastructure-Conference-Transcript.pdf
I agree with nerdy; it’s an infinitely regressive interpretation. Even if grammar supports it, that doesn’t necessarily outweigh the obvious in-round abuse (they can spike out of links), impossible research burden, the underlimiting, etc. etc. etc.
I’m inclined to pull out the counterinterpretaiton: “domestic” specifically implies policy within the country of the agent
Merriam Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestic)
2 : of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one’s own country
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domestic)
4. of or pertaining to one’s own or a particular country as apart from other countries: domestic trade.
Not the best, I know, but something to start with.
- Nick
The best way to handle it is to be prepared for anything. Have a generic DA like US Interventionism bad, or Spending, or Rising Expectations, and be prepared to run it against plans that are not US-based. I don’t think that the larger interpretation (if everyone does it) will kill small programs. The fact is, LD debaters in this area do not do a lot of their own research. They don’t have the time or the inclination. There also isn’t a lot of “on case” debate. Most LD debaters in this area, as I mentioned, also do Parli and many other events, and they go to school and many of them have jobs. As you can see there aren’t that many who use this site, though it is getting better!
Remote plans will exist regardless, and we just have to adapt. “Squirrel” affirmatives are typical and shouldn’t cause anyone to flee. You can beat it on “substantially”, for instance, or solvency (no enforcement mechanism).
The good news for a new debater in this area is basically that largely debaters use the same case all year; and for the most part debaters from the same school all use the same case. The “trick” is not keeping up on the topic as much as figuring out how to adapt to the vast array of judges. You cannot count on winning Topicality just because you argue that it was the Framer’s intent to have US-based plans. If so, you should probably e-mail the Framers and get them to correspond with you on the matter. Get someone official to electronically post something to the effect of their intent, if that is even possible. In the meantime, as debaters approach the topic we have to prepare ourselves for likely plans. It is great if you decided to honor what you think was the Framers’ intent, but in truth it would only be your opinion and not necessarily shared by others around you (debaters or judges). If we know of one debater who sees the topic more broadly, there are more of them; and that’s the nature of the activity.
BTW: It seems to me that ALL of those involved in this activity – coaches, judges, and debaters alike – are ethically obligated to actually read, reflect upon (and, I hope, rationally discuss) the “Topic Paper.”
It is located at
http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/nfa/2009-topic3.html
Woe betide any debater this year (who I judge) who argues “Framer’s Intent” without being intimately familiar with the substance of the Official Topic Paper.
This is a good point, and it states “US” initially. The topic paper is brief and rather weak when it comes to substantiation of claims. Further, much of what is mentioned goes beyond the scope of infrastructure, so one wonders why that was the final selection. CEDA/NDT has more involved topic papers, and if our activity followed suit we wouldn’t have to feel so abandoned by the Framers.
I think the word domestic could also be very helpful in limiting the discussion to the United States – why else include it? There may be a persuasive argument that the inclusion of the word domestic, rather than “a” makes a big difference in the topic. “reform a transportation infrastructure” certainly allows to do anything anywhere. But both domestic and USFG in the same sentence, at least in my mind, makes a strong connection on what is topical.
The big problem is, when debate is treated more of a game than an educational enterprise, is that a team who is running an international case, will have prepared MORE for topicality than the negative. They will have answers to all the knee-jerk reactions and thus have the upper hand. By running topicality, perhaps as the only defense in that case, you are playing into the aff’s advantage. Rather than debating transportation infrastructure you are debating topicality.
I wonder, if you run against an international case, if the same generic negative solvency evidence will apply – ie, the negative solvency block you can run against any transportation infrastructure case would also be applicable in that case. I can almost guarantee that the ONLY front line answers the affirmative debater will have will be the topicality answers.
Bottom line, when you run against crazy cases, do not just run topicality – you are already running uphill because their 1AR answers will be STRONG….
In defense of the Topic Paper (and a totally U.S. situs for transportation infrastructre reform) David Trumble does say THIS on page 2 of the Topic Paper re: “educational value”:
“This topic will give the debaters a chance to debate a key domestic policy. We have debated foreign policy topics for 3 of the past 4 years. It would be educational for our community to delve into our domestic affairs for a year.”
Ergo, the Negative could argue that, although the Affirmative interpretation is artful and semantically defensible, a totally-USA interpretation of the situs of reform is superior for two distinct reasons: (1) Framer’s Intent; and (2) Superior Educational Value. (I would expect the debater to specifically cite to the Topic Paper for support, and combined with Nick’s definitions, this becomes a strong argument.)
BTW: I hope that NFA debaters this year will begin to move away from the hackneyed inflammatory rhetoric typically used in other formats (“The Affirmative definition DESTROYS DEBATE…”) and towards reasonable persuasion (“My definition is clearly superior and should be adopted because…”). Nothing in the NFA rules either states or implies that good debaters cannot also be good orators.
aff teams that are non topical or tricky like this on purpose do destroy debate, at least good debate. Like I said if a couple people go around with cases like this from the Nat circuit and they go to PSCFA or something like that they will just blow everyone away. If it is their first time in LD maybe they won’t want to do it anymore. Maybe they think that they don’t wana play with cheaters. If even 1 person quits because of something like that then we have destroyed debate.
In some situations when someone ran a bull-sh*t T on me in parli I have said that if the judge votes on that POS I will forfeit the next round. I only use that when I really think the T is bogus and I am dead serious. I do not want to play my game if others are going to exclude me from it because they don’t want to talk about something I do.
Besides, destroy debate should be a tag for the fairness standard/voter. ‘My definition is superior” belongs on the education or competing interpretations standard/voter. So we should be using both; it’s not zero-sum.
I have already sent out an email to my debaters indicating that the site below might be best classified as “NFA-LD Debate Topic – Lesson One.” Emjoy!
Here’s another good research resource – there’s more than just highways here, by the way. You just have to look around.
- Nick
Ok, I love this S/Cite… but I love you all more. That, and I wana get in on the link sharing like all the cool people!
http://www.joc.com/node/411533
this 1 link has to have 20 applications for it on both sides of the field.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/online/infrastructure/