“Is it then topical for the AC to argue that is just for the US to use military force to prevent the Iranian acquisition of nukes?”

When we look at the topic one obvious problem that most NEGS are going to bring up is how are we supposed to define “military threat?” If Iran poses a military threat to Israel its obvious that its a military threat to Israel, but arguably its also a threat to the United States because of our vested interest in the stability of Israel. So I think one of the questions that needs to be answered is whether the topic is strictly about nations that pose a direct military threat to the United States (such as the ability of North Korea to fire missiles all the way to our West Coast and destroy VBI) or is the topic encompassing enough to talk about military threats that indirectly affect the United States (such as the Iran/Israel example).

In my opinion the debate should be encompassing enough to talk about indirect military threats because those are the types that are most prevalent in the world we live in. If we were to limit the debate to direct military threats there wouldn’t be much of a debate because the negative could just bring up the alternative of developing a missile shield or some other Star Wars-esque device. And seriously, how many countries have the capabilities to invade the US (clue… NONE). As such, the only direct military threats to the US that I can conceive of are missiles and cyber-attacks.

I’d also like to echo the remarks of Chad Henson when he posted, “I’m sure that some of the “progressive” debaters will go to all lengths to avoid debating the topic, but traditional debate on this topic could be very good.” Despite the kritik-ish comments I just wrote regarding the problems with defining military threat I think we can all acknowledge and deal with the complexities of the issues that surround foreign policy without regressing into the type of debate the revolves around who is providing definitions that promote equitable ground. My advice: offer somewhat vague, but fair, definitions and just debate this topic on a more substantive level; you’ll enjoy it more.

I’d just like to end on a quick observation. This topic is, for all intents and purposes, “Was it just for the United States to invade Iraq?” The parallels between the Iraq War and this topic are quite obvious. From that perspective you can come up with a bunch of interesting arguments by just generalizing the Iraq War and taking it out of the context that our pop culture media has spun it into.

i think the kritik is are all nations with nuclear weapons a military threat? like england, do we think they pose a military threat?

and obviously its a military threat to the united states, it would be to equivocal to say military threat in general, unless we delve into a “struggle for world dominance” (i see a t-violation stemming from this)

(3-0) Millburn TM (neg) def. Syosset SK—Saagar Kaul (aff)

(3-0) Scarsdale JS (aff) def. Newtown AA—Akshay Agashe(neg)

(2-1) Niskayuna ST (aff) def. Potomac MD—Mimi Dwyer (neg)

And Uber-charged.

SPARK!

I think I’m reading the resolution differently than you are. It just says “nations that pose a military threat”, not “nations that pose a military threat to the US”. So let’s take it for granted that Iran poses a military threat to Israel. Is it then topical for the AC to argue that is just for the US to use military force to prevent the Iranian acquisition of nukes?

The wording doesn’t suck. It’s longer than I would like, but clearly divides ground and may actually provoke the type of debate it intends. I’m sure that some of the “progressive” debaters will go to all lengths to avoid debating the topic, but traditional debate on this topic could be very good.

One issue raised before is the lack of a position that isn’t “hege good.” Aff doesn’t have to argue that hege is good. They just have to argue that Realism is good.

Campbell’s critique of threat construction will be a great K on the topic because it can negate the resolution stright up and will also function against most AFFs on a critical level because it will be very difficult to affirm without the sort of discourse that Campbell indicts. Unfortunately, much of Campbell relies on some non-falsifiable claims that are questionably warranted, but that’s something that debaters will uncover for themselves.

If you debate the topic, it will probably be a good topic. If you try to circumvent it, you and your judges will have a frustrating set of rounds ahead of you.

if george said it it must be true

I would like to see some people run nuclear racism on the neg of this topic. :)

Anyhow, all I have to do is switch the brains of my PF and LD people and we’ll be fine.

L-D debaters are debating the general and philosophical version of our PFD December topic on military action in Iran.

Tim

US HEGEMONY IS KEY TO PREVENTING PROLIFERATION AND GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. Khalilzad 95

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values — understood as democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world’s major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Cite:
(Zalmay, [director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND & former US Ambassador to Afghanistan] “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War,” Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. proquest)

P.S. Dibs on Khalilzad ‘95 heh

Sorry for the Caps lock, too emocionado.

I actually like the public forum topic a lot (if it’s actually debated well) bc really questioning what kind of methods are used to obtain justice is realy interesting (hopefully we get Malcolm X v MLK debates, or at least something in that genre).