Jan-Feb Theory Shells and shit

Jan-Feb Theory Shells and shit - T-PARAMETRICS BAD A....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
T-PARAMETRICS BAD A. Interpretation: the neg must defend the resolution as a general statement rather than a specific scenario B. Violation: the negative only defends _______, a subset of the resolution. C. Standards ( ) Unpredictable—the neg doesn’t address the resolution as a general statement which is how its proposed. Predictability is key to equal preparation ( ) Limits—no way to predict which sanction the neg will defend. Haass: Richard N. Haass [President, Council on Foreign Relations], Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy , Council on Foreign Relations, June 1998. http://www.cfr.org/publication/2765/economic_sanctions_and_american_diplomacy.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Fgroupby The evidence of the latter contention is widespread. The United States now maintains economic sanctions against literally dozens of countries. One recent study listed no less than 35 countries that had been targeted by new American sanctions from 1993 to 1996 alone . 1 What is critical, however, is not just the frequency with which economic sanctions are used but their importance. Increasingly, sanctions define or dominate a number of significant relationships and policies. The neg disincentivizes topic research because it’s useless in rounds. Also creates a race to the bottom—neg can alter any existing sanction Vote on fairness since competitive debate mandates equal burdens Vote on education since educational debate helps students grow as people Topicality comes first—it’s a gateway issue Prefer competing interpretations to ensure the best precedent for future rounds
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
DELIBERATION CP (1/1) Counterplan: The United States government federal should adopt O'Quinn's deliberative process to decide how to use economic sanctions (I'll clarify).
Background image of page 2
DELIBERATION CP (2/2) Counterplan ensures effective sanctions. O'Quinn: Robert P. O'Quinn, “A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions”, The Heritage Foundation, 6/25/1997. http://www.heritage.org/research/NationalSecurity/BG1126.cfm Economic sanctions are important strategic weapons in the policy arsenal. Like other strategic weapons, however, they must be used with extreme care lest American companies and their workers, suppliers, and shareholders become friendly-fire casualties. Because economic sanctions are only a step below a blockade or other military action, any decision to apply them should receive the same deliberate, sober consideration that is given to a decision that commits U.S. troops to battle. The widespread misapplication of unilateral economic sanctions by Congress and the President since the end of the Cold War suggests that such careful deliberation is not occurring. The United States needs a new strategic doctrine governing the use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives. To fashion this new doctrine, Congress should: 1. Establish guidelines for implementing economic sanctions. Before Congress and the President
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 17

Jan-Feb Theory Shells and shit - T-PARAMETRICS BAD A....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online