10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Topic Analysis by Christian Keil
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Topic Analysis by Christian Keil INTRODUCTION When dealing with policy oriented resolutions, debaters often skip over the framework debate – they agree to a net-benefit standard, have little to no definitional/observational analysis, and spend the rest of their time talking about how many people would die from the nuclear war, genocide, or what have you. With this resolution, one that explicitly focuses on the most deadly, dangerous weapon the world has ever seen, the urge to avoid framework will be stronger than ever. In the following sections, I will explain how a focus on framework might yield interesting positions, create unique divisions of ground, and even exclude the stock arguments (nuke war bad, deterrence, theft) that are sure to be run in a good number of rounds on this topic. DEFINITONAL ANALYSIS Nations 1) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. 2) the territory or country itself the nations of Central America. The obvious function of the inclusion of nations in the resolution (as opposed to having it be without an actor, e.g. Resolved The possession of nuclear weapons is unjust) is to exclude non-state actors like terrorists, people from a given cultural group, or any range of nongovernmental organizations. As the word nations refers to either a distinct set of people under a government, or that government itself, the resolutions primary focus would seem to be on the implication of countries possessing nuclear weapons. This is likely to be the extent of the discussion of nations inmost rounds, but, as will be a theme throughout this analysis, I think that there area number of topics here worth discussing. Here, the discussion will keep its focus on the exclusion/inclusion of non-state actors in a topical affirmation/negation, and explore alternate ways to impact the definition of states on both sides. First, I think its important to note that many argument about non-state actors are still topical, even under the states are nations interpretation – for example, the affirmative argument that states ought not possess nuclear weapons because they can be stolen by terrorists. This 1 nation. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. from Dictionary.com website. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 23 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com argument is acceptable, as it is still based on the states possession. A position that argued that terrorists (not states) ought not possess nuclear weapons, conversely, would be excluded under our interpretation, as it wouldnʼt draw the link between state and terrorist possession. Simply, as long as arguments about non-state actors are tied to state possession in someway, they are legitimate. That said, I think that it is possible (as it nearly always is) to theoretically defend the alternate structuring of a terrorist affirmative case. This will depend largely on the interpretational question of what affirming truly entails, which I will discuss in more depth later, but if affirming just means no nukes, non-state actors might be included in the body of people who wouldnʼt be able to have them. Also, if the affirmative issues the judgment of nuclear weapons are bad on purely ethical grounds and ignores the implementation and real world consequences of the action of the resolution, they could contend that their case argues nuclear weapons are always bad, no matter who has them. Another relevant point regarding our definition of states concerns the potential difference between the two definitions given above. While the two definitions seem quite similar, a smart affirmative could exploit the difference to further bolster a non-state-actor-based position. Using the first definition (people in a particular territory, it would seem to mean that an affirmation takes away weapons from all people living in a recognized state in the world. For example, if the resolution read, States ought not have candy we would expect that government, in addition to destroying their candy stockpiles, would also mandate that all civilian candy be destroyed. Affirming the statement states ought not possess nuclear weapons then, would entail that not only governments destroy their stockpiles, but that all citizens within a state (like terrorists) would be forced to destroy their nuclear weapons as well, at least under the first definition given above. At the very least, it should be clear from the above analysis that your analysis of nations should serve to isolate which actors are acceptable to include in the resolutions judgment. It is important to consider all words and possible interpretations of the resolution when crafting an affirmative (or negative) case, and this is no exception just decide which arguments you want to be allowed or disallowed, and define states accordingly. If your case is particularly reliant on the definition of states, it is probably a good idea to bolster the definition with a justification or two, just because it is so contentious. Ought (Not Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|