SUNDAY , MAY 26 , 2019
Total Files: Over 5000 | Total Users: 7263 |

policy

image

Debating Topicality

Introducing Topicality Topicality arguments are similar to disadvantages, kritiks, and counterplans in that they are major forms of negative arguments that are presented in the 1NC. They are different however, in that they are procedural arguments that question the very legitimacy of affirmative advocacy in the first place. Topicality arguments claim that the plan presented by the affirmative does not fit within the bounds of the resolution. For example, if

image

General Web-Based Education Resources

Think Tanks – Conservative Fordham Institute Think Tanks – Liberal Center on Education Policy Think Tanks – General Brown Center on Education Policy Center for Education Policy. The Center for Education Policy is a Washington, DC, based independent think tank on K— 12 education. National Education Policy Center The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We

image

China Topic Article — Conclusion

[All China Resources] China is a great area for a topic. Since China is an emerging superpower that interacts with the US on the global stage on a daily basis, the topic intersects many important issues that I believe many will find quite interesting. While the breadth of the topic means that students must be prepared to debate a variety of many issues.  This breadth may be overwhelming to the

image

China Topic Article – Kritiks

[All China Resources] Kritiks I think that kritiks are becoming less relevant to overall “strategy” because the “Policy” debate community is becoming more divided between those who engage in more traditional policy debate and those who read kritiks as “one-off” positions and only “kritik.”  The emergence of the new all-kritik labs at summer camps only reify this trend. While factoring the kritik into overall strategy considerations has become less relevant,

China Counterplans

Discussion of counterplan opportunities is another opportunity to create consider strategy. “Soft engagement” counterplans.  In 2005-2006, the college policy debate resolution focused on the question of whether or not the US should increase its pressure on China. The topic was unidirectional – the Aff had to be mean to China in order to exact some concession. It was tough to be Affirmative that year.  Negative teams frequently ran counterplans to

image

China Disadvantages

In the discussion of the likely case areas, I didn’t focus on likely plan mechanisms. I do think that methods of engagement that either increase or decrease pressure on China (and ones that do both) are likely topical/considered to be engagement, though some good T debaters will be good at winning “interpretation”/limits debates in either direction. Regardless, however, most plans will move in one direction (increased or decreased pressure) and

image

China Advantages

[All China Resources] Advantage Areas I normally address the primary advantage areas in more detail, but given the breadth of the topic I will run through them quickly.  For a more thorough discussion of likely advantages, see the Case area. I do think the stronger cases will claim advantages that are likely intrinsic to engaging China, such as US-China relations, China’s economic development, containing China, and the avoidance of US-military

image

China Topic Introduction

[All China Resources] If you ask someone what the 2016-17 debate topic is, they will say the topic is “China.” They are right that the topic area is China, and since China is a country of one billion plus people that is becoming a leading global power and the US engages China in many different ways on a daily basis, China as a topic area is a fascinating one for

China Case Areas

All China Topic Resources Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.  This is an enormous topic. Why? There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of proposals for the US to engage China over many different issues. There is no limit on the type (military, economic, environmental) of issues the . . . This content is restricted to subscribers

image

Defining “Economic and/or diplomatic engagement”

[wpfilebase tag=”file” id=1069] ” More free definitions of “engagement” The 2015-16 policy debate resolution is, Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China. Introduction The focus of this post is on unpacking what it means for the United States to increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with China.  Acceptable interpretations of the term will determine not only the size of