I found this Congressional Research Service (CRS – great evidence source!) on “World Trade Organization (WTO): Issues in
the Debate on Continued U.S. Participation” and thought there may be some interesting cards to cut on both running a WTO counterplan as the neg as well as answers to a WTO counterplan as the affirmative.

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R41291.pdf

Share on Facebook

I apologize for the lack of page numbers on the front of the CBU material, but I’m trying to get my whole team using Google Documents this year, they have yet to put that feature into their newest “Table of Contents” function.  If they don’t do it soon, I may have to go back to OpenOffice.

This is the packet that Danny and I will be distributing at the coaches conference this afternoon in Rancho Mirage, for those of you planning on attending.  We’ll be sure to post anything LD related that comes out of this weekend’s conversations.

Share on Facebook

Regarding the ability to counterplan I think there is a growing body of research (I have been reviewing it this evening) on Subnational cooperation with China. I think a really fascinating counter-plan could be developed arguing that there is no need for Federal Action when Governors and States have been doing a lot to reform trade policy with China:

As the United States and China continue to build stronger government-to-government ties, there is a growing awareness in both countries that increased cooperation at the subnational level will strengthen our bilateral relationship and benefit both our countries. At the second round of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in May 2010, the United States and China pledged to enhance bilateral economic cooperation at the subnational levels. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/154874.htm

It would operate like the States counterplan (follow the link for a thorough explanation). The key for me is that this seems to be an emerging area of the debate over U.S.-China Trade policy so it seems very germane to the discussion.

In the event the affirmative debater runs a very “small” trade policy case I wonder if this type of counterplan, coupled with a politics disadvantage, could be a winning strategy.

Your thoughts?

Share on Facebook

The first file I clicked on was a topicality shell (DDW11-Topicality-Wave2-NEG) which has some interesting theory arguments. Another good reason to review them is they bring up some interesting examples of tags and cards. For example, in the file on page three is this card trying to assert that Depth (smaller topic) is better than breadth (big topic).

3. Studies prove – depth is better than breadth.
Arrington, UVA Today, ‘9 (Rebecca, UVA Today, “Study Finds That Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, in High School Science Courses” March 4)

A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. “Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework” relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students’ performance in college-level science classes. The study will appear in the July 2009 print edition of Science Education and is currently available as an online pre-print from the journal. “As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science,” Tai said. “These results are based on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States.” The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic.

But how I presented it above is not how it’s underlined in the brief. The quotation above makes it clear that the study was specifically in science classes. But the card leaves that completely out of the debate!

Now, one could make a very compelling argument that this study can be understood to apply to other areas of education as well – such as when debating public policy. But the brief doesn’t take the time to assert the connection. As a judge (and especially as the opposing debater) this would be something to stress in in a rebuttal. When the evidence in this position becomes really flimsy a judge will begin to evaluate the other evidence in the same negative light.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Interesting Article from the LA Times on China’s economy.

Share on Facebook

Thanks to Tony Liu (El Camino) for sending in three example affirmative cases from last year.

• Bipolar 1AC (PDF)
• Polytherapy 1AC Revised
• PTSD 1AC Comm Judge
• PTSD 1AC Revised

You’ll notice that he sent in two versions of the PTSD affirmative – one specifically designated for Comm (communication) judges. I’d be interested to hear if most of you also had multiple versions of cases depending on who is in the back of the room. Seems like a smart strategy to me!

By the way, this means SoCal-LD.net is now offering 93 example files on our free evidence page. If anyone has any disadvantages or topicality shells they’d like to share from last year (or any counterplans – anyone run a counterplan last year?) please feel free to send them into info@socal-ld.net

Thanks again Tony!

Share on Facebook

Just found this while doing some basic research on the topic…http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/ … seems pretty good! It’s hosted by Arizona State University and The Kearny Alliance which gives it a lot of credibility. Post the best stuff you find in the comments!

I wonder if we can get the collaboration to sponsor the SoCal-LD Championships this year! =)

Share on Facebook

Please send any files (generic backfiles are appreciated as well!) to info@socal-ld.net

Share on Facebook

Email to info@socal-ld.net

Share on Facebook