Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Extension: A/t - #1 “We Meet” 407
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 2 “Counter-Interpretation” 408
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 3 “Counter-Standards” 409
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 4 “Only Positive Conditions” 410
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 5 “No Case Meets” 411
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 6 “Reasonability” 412
2NC Extension: A/t - #1 “We Meet” 4071) They do not meet our interpretation. The plan must guarantee assistance regardless of the other country’s response. The mere possibility that the plan could be refused means we have to prepare for multiple worlds, which links to all of our standards. Even if one possible outcome of the plan is topical, none of the others are. 2) Plan in a vacuum: The plan text on its face does not transfer funds to another country. You should not evaluate solvency or any other 1AC claims when determining Topicality. 2NC Extension: A/t - #2 “Counter-Interpretation” 4081) This links to our Limits and Education standards. By allowing other countries to determine whether the plan happens, they explode limits and create an unmanageable research load for the Negative team while also decreasing the amount we learn about core topic literature. 2) Our standards outweigh theirs. Limits are a prerequisite to meaningful debate, and education is the reason the activity exists. If we win these links, they cannot win that their interpretation is better for debate. 2NC Extension: A/t - #3 “Counter-Standards” 4091) They do not win Limits because there are no limits to what conditional affirmatives could do. If you multiply the number of policy goals by the number of forms of assistance by all the possible implementation outcomes, you create an unmanageable topic with very weak research on every case. FRERKS, 6 [Georg, Professor of Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management at Utrecht University; “The Use of Peace Conditionalities in Conflict and Post-Conflict settings: A Conceptual Framework and a Checklist,” October, www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20061000_cru_frerks.pdf] On the basis of the above the following preliminary definition of aid conditionality could be put forward: Aid conditionality refers to attempts by donor governments to induce recipient governments to change their policies and behaviour, as well as to influence the way aid itself is spent. In all the above cases, donors need to specify exactly what goals or directions it has in mind for their respective recipients. The possibilities are virtually endless, ranging from fiscal and macro-economic reforms, structural adjustment programmes, respect for human rights, reducing military expenditure, gender and environment-friendly policies, procedural and substantive democracy, to the promotion of free media and stimulation of civil society. Also frequently included in conditions are anti-corruption policies, transparency and other measures of good governance. It is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate on the problem of defining these issues in a consistent and appropriate manner, because of the specific context, capabilities and weaknesses of each recipient country. The knowledge base for such policy prescriptions is often weak, as the intervention logic of many policies is not based on location-specific, tested and proven evidence. Stokke makes a number of interesting observations on those issues and also raises also a number of fundamental, moral and ethical dilemmas in this regard (1995: 33-41). 3.2 When does aid or policy become a conditionality? Though we may now all agree that conditionalities are donor instruments or attempts to reach particular goals, the question remains when a particular donor instrument can be called a conditionality and when not? Lewis, for example, defines conditionality as ‘donor efforts of one kind or another to influence recipient policies’ (1993:41). By this definition, conditionality attaches to virtually all aid and thus the definition loses its distinguishing character.
[Greg, Law Associate with Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP; “Globalizing Decency: Responsible Engagement in an Era of Economic Integration,” Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal] At the margins, “conditionalities” inducing adherence to codes of conduct and sanctions blur together. For instance, while selective purchasing need not constitute a boycott, the Burma and South Africa procurement regimes discussed above are clearly designed to curtail economic engagement with unpalatable regimes. Measures insisting on divestment cross a subtle boundary, going beyond the “mitigation” goal of the second prong of responsible engagement. They clearly constitute sanctions, the propriety of which must be scrutinized with an eye to the various concerns about sanctions, their effectiveness and secondary effects. 2NC Extension: A/t - #5 “No Case Meets” 4111) Any Affirmative that guarantees a transfer in assistance without requiring a response from the target country meets our interpretation. Even if the target country rejects the assistance or the plan doesn’t solve, that happens after the plan has occurred and thus does not change whether the plan is topical. Only examine the plan in a vacuum to determine Topicality. 2NC Extension: A/t - #6 “Reasonability” 4121) You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education and is more fair. 2) The affirmative cannot define “reasonability” in an objective manner, one that isn’t blatantly biased by their strong self-interest in wanting their plan to be topical. For this reason, you must reject “reasonability” as a standard. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|