The 3NR

One of the important arguments to win when going for heg bad is a solvency takeout- not that the plan doesn’t boost hegemony, but that hegemony doesn’t reduce conflict. Here is a link to a sick cato article that has a bunch of links to other good articles in it on this point. So good it could be a blinders K card…

Most in Washington still embraces the notion that America is, and forever will be, the world’s indispensable nation. Some scholars, however, questioned the logic of hegemonic stability theory from the very beginning. A number continue to do so today. They advance arguments diametrically at odds with the primacist consensus. Trade routes need not be policed by a single dominant power; the international economy is complex and resilient. Supply disruptions are likely to be temporary, and the costs of mitigating their effects should be borne by those who stand to lose — or gain — the most. Islamic extremists are scary, but hardly comparable to the threat posed by a globe-straddling Soviet Union armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. It is frankly absurd that we spend more today to fight Osama bin Laden and his tiny band of murderous thugs than we spent to face down Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. Many factors have contributed to the dramatic decline in the number of wars between nation-states; it is unrealistic to expect that a new spasm of global conflict would erupt if the United States were to modestly refocus its efforts, draw down its military power, and call on other countries to play a larger role in their own defense, and in the security of their respective regions.

But while there are credible alternatives to the United States serving in its current dual role as world policeman / armed social worker, the foreign policy establishment in Washington has no interest in exploring them. The people here have grown accustomed to living at the center of the earth, and indeed, of the universe. The tangible benefits of all this military spending flow disproportionately to this tiny corner of the United States while the schlubs in fly-over country pick up the tab.

The final list of topic candidates for the 2011-2012 season is as follows:

1. Cyber Warfare: The United States federal government should establish rules of engagement governing its use of cyber warfare.

2. Southeast Asia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development assistance to Southeast Asia.

3. Space: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

4. India: The United States federal government should substantially increase its cooperation with India in one or more of the following areas: civilian space programs, nuclear proliferation, trade.

5. China: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, currency, environment.

This list will be voted on by schools throughout the country via the state and national debate organizations.

The NFHS topic committee is meeting this morning to narrow down the list of eight working resolutions to the final five that will appear on the national ballot.

Update:

1. The Russia topic was voted out in the first ballot. There were 28 total ballots; each ballot ranked the top five topics. Russia received 8 votes; Urban Renewal finished seventh with 9 votes and so remains on the ballot.

2. The Urban Renewal topic was voted out on the second ballot. One more balloting will occur to eliminate another topic; the final five topics will appear on the national ballot.

3. The IMF/World Bank topic was voted out on the third ballot. It received 13 votes; the second-lowest vote recipient was Cyber Security with 17. The top vote getters were India (25/28), Southeast Asia (24), Space Policy (24), and China (22).

Three of the following topics will NOT make the cut:

Cyber Warfare: The United States federal government should establish rules of engagement governing its use of cyber warfare.

Southeast Asia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development assistance to Southeast Asia.

Russia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the Russian Federation.

Space: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

India: The United States federal government should substantially increase its cooperation with India in one or more of the following areas: civilian space programs, nuclear proliferation, trade.

Urban Renewal: The United States federal government should substantially increase its urban renewal assistance in the United States.

IMF/World Bank: The International Monetary Fund and/or the World Bank should eliminate one or more economic policy conditions placed upon Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

China: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, currency, environment.

Discussion and advocacy of each topic is underway; voting will begin in the next hour or so. I will update this post as votes are taken and topics are eliminated.

It is day two of the NFHS Topic Committee meeting in Deerfield, Illinois. There are eight working topics that were discussed yesterday in committee and that are being discussed by the entire group today. The complete working resolutions (still subject to change, so comments are encouraged) that have been discussed so far include:

Cyber Warfare: The United States federal government should establish rules of engagement governing its use of cyber warfare. Previous version: The United States federal government should increase anti-cyber warfare operations.

Southeast Asia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development assistance to Southeast Asia.

Russia: The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the Russian Federation. Previous version: The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the Russian Federation on military security issues.

Space: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

India: The United States federal government should substantially increase its cooperation with India in one or more of the following areas: civilian space programs, nuclear proliferation, trade.

Urban Renewal: The United States federal government should substantially increase its urban renewal assistance in the United States.

IMF/World Bank: The International Monetary Fund and/or the World Bank should eliminate one or more economic policy conditions placed upon Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

China: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, currency, environment.

Do you have thoughts about any of these potential resolutions? Post a comment and I’ll bring it to the attention of the committee. In particular, it would be great if people who are familiar with doing “Word PIC research” would make sure that we do not repeat the “Sub-Saharan Africa” disaster (where the resolution included a term that did not have a defense against a critique of its usage).

Mike Horowitz, a Prof at Penn but more importantly the person who found the Murray card, has a new book coming out with obvious utility for this topic.

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I am pleased to announce the release of my first book, The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics.  It is now available for purchase at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, and other places.  It is available in paperback, hardcover, and kindle editions.  Published by Princeton University Press, the book assesses the factors that drive the diffusion of new military innovations throughout the international system and the way these diffusion patterns shape international politics.  It covers historical cases such as battlefleet and carrier warfare, contemporary challenges such as nuclear weapons and suicide terrorism, and the way the information age may impact the future of warfare and American power.  As the press page states:

The Diffusion of Military Power examines how the financial and organizational challenges of adopting new methods of fighting wars can influence the international balance of power. Michael Horowitz argues that a state or actor wishing to adopt a military innovation must possess both the financial resources to buy or build the technology and the internal organizational capacity to accommodate any necessary changes in recruiting, training, or operations. How countries react to new innovations–and to other actors that do or don’t adopt them–has profound implications for the global order and the likelihood of war.

Horowitz looks at some of the most important military innovations throughout history, including the advent of the all-big-gun steel battleship, the development of aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons, and the use of suicide terror by nonstate actors. He shows how expensive innovations can favor wealthier, more powerful countries, but also how those same states often stumble when facing organizationally complicated innovations. Innovations requiring major upheavals in doctrine and organization can disadvantage the wealthiest states due to their bureaucratic inflexibility and weight the balance of power toward smaller and more nimble actors, making conflict more likely. This book provides vital insights into military innovations and their impact on U.S. foreign policy, warfare, and the distribution of power in the international system.

The Spartan Debate Institute at Michigan State University held its annual Faculty Demonstration Debate this week in East Lansing. With all four- and five-week students in attendance, the debate featured a showdown between faculty members with a combined five appearances in the semifinals of the National Debate Tournament:

• Kevin Kallmyer, University of Mary Washington ‘10 — 2010 NDT Semifinalist
• Gabe Murillo, Wayne State University ‘07 — 2006 and 2007 NDT Semifinalist, 2007 NDT Top Speaker
• Greta Stahl, Michigan State University ‘04 — 2004 NDT Champion, 2002 NDT Semifinalist
• Carly Wunderlich, Michigan State University ‘10 — 2010 NDT Champion

Kevin and Carly represented the affirmative and argued that the United States should withdraw its combat forces from Afghanistan in order to maintain hegemony and stabilize both Pakistan and Central Asia. Greta and Gabe countered with several arguments but eventually settled in their final rebuttal on a Midterms disadvantage and takeouts to the affirmative case.

The debate was moderated by Will Repko, the coach of the 2010 National Debate Tournament Champions. Repko has now coached three NDT Champions in the last seven years and is widely regarded as one of the nation’s best debate educators—he uses the demonstration debate to discuss a wide range of strategic and tactical issues with the audience.

The video of the debate is divided into two parts and is available below the fold.

Read more…

The list of freely available lectures from this year’s summer debate institutes has been updated this morning. Lectures from the Dartmouth Debate Workshop and Dartmouth Debate Institute are now being posted as an iTunes podcast and the first four episodes have been included in our list. Lectures from the Spartan Debate Institute will be added soon. If anyone notices missing lectures, please post a comment.

There is a button on the right side that says “download as mp3″ which you can use to download a computer voice reading the article.

There was a frontpage article in the AJC about the Emory debate camp recently.

You can read it here

A while back I combined 2 concepts in my mind

1. Judge philosophies are for the most part totally useless. Most of them read exactly the same “i’ll vote for anything if you explain it well etc”. Even the few that break from this mold are usually a series of opinions followed by “however, these are just my defaults, I will ignore them based on arguments in a debate”.

2. There doesn’t seem to be a better way to get the crucial information you need as a debater out of a judges head. Asking questions before the debate usually yields more of the same-  a bland, flavorless mush of information not helpful for you to adapt.

Read more…