JUST IN: Jan/Feb Resolution Released
posted by Jon Cruz on November 30th, 2007
RIPON, Wis. The National Forensic League has announced that the Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution for for the January/February time period is:
“Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.”
The above resolution will also be used for the Tournament of Champions. The Public Forum debate resolution for January reads:
“Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.”
Popularity: 4%
no more tag found, sorry
65 Responses to “JUST IN: Jan/Feb Resolution Released”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Completely Open Thread
- Ben Holguin Wins the MinneApple
- Jake Nebel Wins the Glenbrooks
- Field Report: Bump (Hen Hud)
- In Memoriam: Michael Bacon
- JUST IN: Jan/Feb Resolution Released
- Alex Williams, Gabe Schonfeld Declared Bump Champions
- Greg Bigelow is Whitman Champion
- Alex Bores Takes Villiger
- Ask Cruz: Volume I
Posted from: 68.212.156.35
November 30th, 2007 15:36
ARGH!!!!!!!
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
November 30th, 2007 15:39
what a deal
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
November 30th, 2007 16:01
good fuckin topic.
Posted from: 128.54.165.129
November 30th, 2007 16:08
wow, finally, a decent ToC topic. that hasn’t happened for a while…
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).
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
November 30th, 2007 16:26
VBI 3rd week was worth it already…that just made it extra delicious
Posted from: 208.113.191.13
November 30th, 2007 16:38
[…] The LD folks will be debating a topic that seems very similar to the December topic. […]
Posted from: 75.139.45.247
November 30th, 2007 17:48
fantastic topic area, atrocious wording.
Posted from: 146.115.67.36
November 30th, 2007 18:06
I think I love this topic too much
Posted from: 24.223.106.131
November 30th, 2007 18:45
At first glance I actually dislike the L-D topic, mostly because the affirmative has very little critical ground, or cases to run that aren’t “Yay for hard power” on the other hand, the neg ground for this topic is amazing. I can think of a dozen critical arguments that could be ran without really even thinking to hard on it partially due to the concept behind it and partially due to the fact that the wording could be easily kritiked great. However, I’m sure there’s more to this than meets the eye and I’m guessing it will end up like the UN topic that appeared dismal at first, but after a lot of brainstorming, will have a lot of good debate ground.
Posted from: 24.223.106.131
November 30th, 2007 18:46
Also, kudos to the PFDers for coming up with a topic that doesn’t cause me to feel like my IQ has dropped a few points!
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
November 30th, 2007 18:51
Excellent topic.
Posted from: 66.166.207.35
November 30th, 2007 18:53
sounds very good. i’m excited.
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
November 30th, 2007 20:12
HECK YEAH!
I FREAKING LOVE THIS TOPIC!!! NUKES FTW!!!! I FORGIVE YOU TOPIC COMMITTEE FOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER!
P.S. Dibs on Khalilzad ‘95 heh
Sorry for the Caps lock, too emocionado.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
November 30th, 2007 20:14
Dude….Khalilzad ‘95 is SO old. And probably will be thoroughly prepped. Saad, remember the Shell card from camp?
Posted from: 75.139.45.247
November 30th, 2007 21:10
oh dear god. if i hit the khalilzad card i will have NO idea what to do. the united states’ global influence has not changed at all since 1995 and the argument in general is just sooo good. you got me again saad asad.
Posted from: 67.116.241.4
November 30th, 2007 21:17
omg
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
November 30th, 2007 21:39
Wade, don’t you know, the risk of a unlikely impact from 12 years in the past that presumes a different international scene is so huge it outweighs all probability and logic. Pull the trigger OMGZ!
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
November 30th, 2007 21:58
ballin’
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
November 30th, 2007 22:12
My donation:
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)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
November 30th, 2007 22:36
nukes nukes nukes nukes nukes nukes nukes…
Posted from: 72.74.9.245
November 30th, 2007 22:57
I am less than gruntled with this topic. But I appear to be in the minority.
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
November 30th, 2007 23:21
My bad, next time I will use a few “JK!!1″ then a ‘:D’ and finally a few “lolz” to better convey my message. In fact, I’ll just let a 13 year old girl type comments for me next time. Except I might need rainbow fonts and unicorns, jerks.
Posted from: 146.115.112.26
November 30th, 2007 23:51
I like the topic…a lot. there’s just so many interesting arguments on both sides, as the topic touches on just SO MANY foreign policy issues (a lot of people are gonna gripe about the lack of many obvious/nuanced affirmative positions, but i think it’s positive that we’re being forced to flesh out our own advocacies a little more than other topics have forced us to)
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 1st, 2007 00:38
Having debated this topic at camp, and reading through literally 60+ articles over the summer both at and after camp, making an IR file along with general prep figuring it would be picked…I have to say the topic has plenty of ground on both sides. If you can’t think of anything for aff other than ‘hard power rocks’ then you haven’t researched nearly enough.
Posted from: 24.62.124.42
December 1st, 2007 03:39
The PFD topic for January represents a collaboration between the NFL and the producers and sponsors of the new Denzel Washington movie, THE GREAT DEBATERS, which was featured by Jon a few days ago under its own thread. The civil disobedience topic is debated in that film. It comes out on Christmas Day as a gift to PFD debaters around the country.
L-D debaters are debating the general and philosophical version of our PFD December topic on military action in Iran.
Tim
Posted from: 69.118.124.87
December 1st, 2007 07:16
It’s curious that the words fight and weapon are used in aid of civil disobedience…
Anyhow, all I have to do is switch the brains of my PF and LD people and we’ll be fine.
Posted from: 199.76.179.127
December 1st, 2007 08:00
a fraction of infinite is still infinite!
Posted from: 164.116.186.160
December 1st, 2007 09:48
Hege good.
I would like to see some people run nuclear racism on the neg of this topic. :)
Posted from: 75.139.45.247
December 1st, 2007 10:42
nuclear war is good because it disincentivizes the creation of ANTI-MATTER WEAPONS THAT WILL DESTROY CIVILIZATION.
Posted from: 76.17.228.152
December 1st, 2007 12:14
YES
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 1st, 2007 12:22
mmm…”I’m less likely to end the existence of life on earth, vote aff.”
Posted from: 130.58.195.198
December 1st, 2007 12:46
WAR
NUKE WAR!
Posted from: 69.111.178.80
December 1st, 2007 12:57
Kritique: there are no military threats to the United States. Probly the worst and best idea ever at the same time
Posted from: 76.173.196.255
December 1st, 2007 13:48
http://youtube.com/watch?v=00xXKjLpaZ0
if george said it it must be true
Posted from: 76.187.221.251
December 1st, 2007 14:24
I am generally pleased with this topic. It manages to avoid offensive wording, provides an agent of action, and engages a topic area with substantial literature. The critical IR literature is important to explore, and while it’s all negative, that’s not a far cry from the topics of yesteryear, when AFFs almost always defended conservative positions.
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.
Posted from: 24.13.120.157
December 1st, 2007 14:25
“Kritique: there are no military threats to the United States”
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?
Posted from: 76.187.221.251
December 1st, 2007 14:25
One more thing….
SPARK!
Posted from: 128.62.161.170
December 1st, 2007 17:06
@36: arguably… I think that depends on whether the military threat is contextualized to the US or not
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
December 1st, 2007 17:25
this is so stacked on the neg
Posted from: 155.97.238.238
December 1st, 2007 17:58
I love this topic it’s amazing!! YAY!! I just think that there are so many great Policy K’s and watev you can run on it. P.S.–I debated this topic at camp and trust me there are fun args on both sides. such an improvement from plea bargaining!!
Posted from: 71.184.89.158
December 1st, 2007 20:22
wade I will take you on the wipeout debate
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
December 1st, 2007 22:48
http://www.block-stop.org/index_files/Page918.htm
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 2nd, 2007 02:46
that seems slightly stalkerish
Posted from: 67.160.125.10
December 2nd, 2007 04:22
Clusterfucked.
And Uber-charged.
Posted from: 208.113.191.13
December 2nd, 2007 07:25
[…] [via Victory Briefs Daily] […]
Posted from: 12.107.91.2
December 2nd, 2007 08:27
Futher, updates that are literaly live from the rounds are at http://www.block-stop.org
(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)
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
December 2nd, 2007 12:35
hrm. going to kentucky and i’m gonna get NUKLEAR RACE HOLOCAUST.
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 2nd, 2007 13:39
Wow, this looks interesting. I wonder how it will go….
Posted from: 70.138.229.194
December 2nd, 2007 17:54
this LD topic is prefect for me to use at TOC because it requires us to be very tackful in our language and in our cases now more than ever
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
December 2nd, 2007 18:29
“Kritique: there are no military threats to the United States”
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)
Posted from: 69.117.77.212
December 2nd, 2007 21:57
After seeing the film, The Great Debaters, it will be very interesting to see how rounds/arguments pan out. This collaboration is an amazing idea, and especially poignant with regards to the film.
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 3rd, 2007 11:58
Just an FYI–as usual, the Jan/Feb LD topic will be used at Blake and College Prep later this month.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
December 3rd, 2007 19:18
OK. REVISE YER ESTIMATES, NEW TOPIC IS LIKE FRESH CREME AFTER A MONTH OF POWDERED MILK. SICK NASTY STUFF COMMENCING.
Posted from: 209.6.134.249
December 3rd, 2007 19:58
For the PFD topic, how does the neg debate? IS the neg required to say that everyone should just accept whatever the government is doing? That seems pretty ridiculous so I must be missing something. enlightenment please
Posted from: 216.250.178.113
December 3rd, 2007 20:50
Now st louis park will have a justification for talking about nuke war in round (i hope this reputation is not so long gone that none of you get the joke)
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
December 3rd, 2007 21:55
I’d assume for the pofo topic that the neg would argue that violence is the alternative and civil disobedience is inadequate.
Posted from: 71.191.76.4
December 4th, 2007 18:50
i don’t think this topic could be any better. i’m so pumped.
Posted from: 75.56.213.139
December 5th, 2007 02:17
Quite possibly. Although, a possible kritik that I’ve heard so far has been the “threats are subjective” case, which I don’t really buy into. Generally, however, I think talking about military pwnage and nukes is just a cool topic overall.
Posted from: 75.139.45.247
December 5th, 2007 13:18
queerbait fruitcake
Posted from: 147.9.173.222
December 5th, 2007 19:22
In Response to Carl Schwartz:
“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.
Posted from: 75.56.208.229
December 5th, 2007 22:58
I’d just like to meantion that “jewbaby” is racist. Don’t believe me? Then read his e-mail he has posted under his name.
Posted from: 66.233.49.99
December 8th, 2007 12:39
I think topic has parallels (when written) to whether we should Invade Iran that I like better than parallels to Iraq.
Posted from: 12.208.82.228
December 12th, 2007 19:27
Does anyone else consider it absolutely ridiculous that the PF topic is a metaphor?
Posted from: 208.120.130.198
March 6th, 2008 18:05
umm, how exactly do you affirm this topic?
Posted from: 72.153.117.161
March 6th, 2008 19:01
“hay guise i luvs milytari forse lol!!11″