PROBLEM AREA I: Cyber Security

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

The possibility of cyber war has escalated for over a decade but has recently become a reality. The United States is more vulnerable to a cyber attack than other nations. Our dependence on cyberspace for our critical infrastructure, communication and economy puts us at risk. Though we are one of the better-equipped nations to wage cyber war, there are no rules of engagement. Rules exist for conventional and nuclear war but those same rules don’t exist for cyber warfare. The United States should take the lead and establish its own rules of engagement. Issues are familiar from debates regarding conventional war, but students would get to examine them through the new lens of cyber war. Affirmatives may argue no first use and acceptable/unacceptable targets including civilian populations and specific industries like banking or power generation. Other affirmative issues include the use of logic bombs and trapdoors in computer systems and a host of offensive and defensive policies. Advantage ground extends to the U.S. relationship with other countries or the obligation to assist other countries and what U.S. accountability should be with non-state actors. Negatives could have disadvantage ground including privacy, business confidence, hegemony, economy and politics. Counterplan ground includes international actors, private actors and application of conventional war practices to cyber war. Critique ground could include issues as statism and biopower. The United States is currently attempting to determine our policies and practices that foster a multitude of proposals for plans of action. There isn’t a quick fix; the fruition of policy or legislative discussion is years away. Now is the time for debaters to examine our direction in the area of cyber warfare.

PROBLEM AREA II: Southeast Asia

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

Southeast Asia, which consists of Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, is one of the most dynamic regions in the world. It is surrounded and heavily influenced by the military and economic might of China, the booming population of India and the industrial strength of Japan. However, Southeast Asia faces several unique infrastructural, environmental and other developmental challenges. Japan, China and Australia, having recognized the potential for growth and productivity in the region and are substantially involved there. Their assistance has not generated adequate results. Likewise, according to studies from the Department of Defense and the Heritage Foundation, the current level of United States assistance is insufficient to meet the developmental needs of the area. Now is the critical time for the United States to increase its engagement if it wishes to remain a dominant actor in the region. Affirmatives could use a variety of mechanisms including: loans, grants, technical aid, access to capital markets and investments. Such assistance could help one or more nations improve their infrastructure, economy, environment, education system and agricultural output. Negatives have several unique areas for ground and could dispute the effectiveness of developmental assistance, the appropriateness of the United States as an actor, and the morality of assisting an area that is wrought with human rights abuses.

PROBLEM AREA III: Space Policy

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

Space exploration fires people’s imaginations. The 1969 moon landings rank as one of the highest achievements of modern civilization. There is something uncanny about the human need to explore the universe. Discussing space exploration and development would have the same effect. A topic like this could spark the imagination of potential debaters, and the easy accessibility of materials would make the learning curve on the subject manageable. This is a critical time in the United States space program. The status of the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration is in limbo, especially concerning human spaceflight. The Space Shuttle is retiring in the fall of 2010, with no possible US replacement available before 2015. In addition, NASA has an unclear mandate/direction to explore either the Moon or Mars. This is balanced against NASA’s recent success with robotic exploration, such as the Mars rovers and the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as increased private sector growth. Affirmative cases could include astronomical surveys, setting new goals for human spaceflight, using new probes to examine celestial bodies in our solar system or beyond, and developing space economies. The technological and economic benefits of the space program are well documented. Negative arguments could include the increased militarization of space, the significant cost in money and resources, timeframe arguments and the need to focus more on problems concerning the Earth, such as climate change.

PROBLEM AREA IV: India

Resolved: 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.

In addition to being one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, India is also one of the world’s most populous nations, ranking second, behind China, with over 1.1 billion people. India is often characterized as a nascent major power and “natural partner” of the United States. Since 2004, Washington and New Delhi have pursued a “strategic partnership” based on shared values such as democracy, pluralism and rule of law. Numerous economic, security and global initiatives, including plans for civilian nuclear cooperation, are underway. Given this policy emphasis, it is a perfect time for high school debaters to examine US foreign policy towards India. Affirmatives could include decreasing controls on technology exports to India, reducing restrictions on arms sales to India, reducing restrictions on nuclear fuel exports to India, increasing U.S.-India cooperation in space, increase US-India cooperation on counterterrorism, increase U.S.-India cooperation on renewable energy development, negotiating a U.S.-India bilateral trade treaty and support India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Advantages could include the specifics for the individual plans, as well as increased U.S.-Indian relations and effects on international security vis-à-vis China, Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Negatives could argue that increasing cooperation with India would negatively affect the nonproliferation regime, fuel world instability by increasing competition with and concern from China and promote regional instability by tipping the delicate balance of U.S.-Indian-Pakistani relations. In addition, negatives could run disadvantages relating to the effects of the various plans on the U.S. and world economy, as well as on the U.S. federal budget. The standard kritiks that are used on foreign policy topics would also be available on this topic as well.

PROBLEM AREA V: China

Resolved: 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.

There are powerful reasons for the United States to build closer ties with China. The United States and China are the two largest economies in the world when Gross Domestic Product is measured on a purchasing power basis. Simultaneously, there are reasons for caution, given the human rights conditions and central control of the economy in China. Former Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, in the September/October 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs entitled, “Strengthening U.S.-Chinese Ties: A Strategic Economic Engagement on Trade and the Environment,” explains “economic engagement” as promoting interdependence between the U.S. and Chinese economies. He also explains “economic engagement” by contrasting it with the alternatives. “There are three possible ways for the United States and China to pursue their economic and trade relations: robust engagement, dispute resolution through multilateral and bilateral enforcement measures or punitive legislation.” Possible affirmative cases could focus on promoting product safety, direct foreign investment, management of currencies, protection of the environment, workers’ rights, respecting intellectual property rights and inclusion of China in major international forums such as the G8. Negative positions could focus on human rights issues, concern that a stronger economy would strengthen the Chinese military, changes in the balance of power in Asia and tensions within the World Trade Organization.

Afghan Resources (SDI)
Appeasement (Capitol, DDW, KU, Samford)
Allied Prolif (DDW, Emory, KU, SDI)
China Agression (Emory, Gzaga, KU, NU, SDI, UMich, UNT)
CMR (Berkley, Capitol, DDI, DDW, Kentucky, SDI, UMich)
Coercive Diplomacy (UMich)
CPGS (DDI)
Deterrence (Berkley, NU, Samford, SDI, UMich, UNT)
Diplomatic Focus (Berkley, UMich)
Gates (DDI, Emory)
Heg/Resolve (Berkley, Capitol, DDW, GTown, Samford)
Iran Agression (Emory, UNT)
Iran Prolif (Capitol)
Iraq Politics (DDI)
Israel (DDI, DDW, UNT)
Israel Politics (Gzaga)
Japan Air Power (UNT)
Japan Econ (Gzaga)
Japan F22′s (DDI)
Japan JASA Bad (Gzaga)
Japan Politics (DDI, GTown, UMich)
Japan Rearm (Berkley, DDI, DDW, GTown, UNT, Whitman)
Karzai Cred (Capitol, Gzaga)
Kuwait Camp Arifjan (Gzaga)
Kuwait Econ (Gzaga)
Middle East Stability (Whitman)
NATO (GTown, UNT)
Oil (UMich)
Pipeline DA (Capitol)
PMC (Berkley)
Readiness (UNT, Whitman)
Relations (Berkley, NU)
Redeployment (DDI, Samford, SDI)
Reverse Spending:
Airborne Laser (DDI, GTown)
F22′s (GTown)
Future Combat Systems (DDW, SDI)
General (Samford)
Space (Gzaga)
Russia Expansion (Gzaga)
SK Politics (DDI)
SK Prolif (UNT)
SK Rearm (DDI, DDW, UNT)
SK Withdraw (NU)
Soft Power (DDI)
Turkey Coup (DDW)
Turkey Politics (DDI)
Turkey Rearm (?)
US-Israel Relations (UMich, Whitman)
US-SK Relations (UNT)
US-Turkey Relations (Gzaga, UMich)

Politics:
Energy/Climate (DDI, DDW, GTown, KU, NU, SDI, UMich, Whitman)
Financial Reform (Berkley, GTown)
Immigration (KU, Whitman)
Jobs Bill (DDW)
SKFTA (DDI)
START (Berkley, Capitol, KU, NU, SDI, UMich, UNT)

Midterms:
Dems Good:
Climate Bill (DDW, Emory, KU, Samford, SDI, UMich)
Corporate Oversight (KU)
Crisis Response (Emory)
DADT (Emory, UMich)
Econ (UMich)
EFCA/Card Check (NU)
Free Trade (Emory)
Health Care Reform (Emory, KU, NU, SDI)
Heg (SDI)
Immigration Reform (DDW, Emory, NU, Samford, UMich, UNT)
Impeachment (KU)
Iran Strikes (SDI)
Soft Power (KU)
START (UMich)
VAT (UNT)
GOP Good:
Bipart (Emory)
Climate (SDI, UMich)
CTBT (NU)
DADT (SDI, UMich)
EFCA/Card Check (SDI)
Gridlock:
Deficits (Emory, KU, SDI)
Economy Generic (DDW, Emory, UMich)
Free Trade (Emory)
Interventionism (Emory)
Judicial Review (Emory, SDI)
Wars (SDI)
Health Care Repeal (SDI)
Heg (Emory)
Nuclear Policy (Emory, KU)
Peace Process Bad (Emory)
SKFTA (DDW, Emory)
Taxes (Emory)
VAT (UNT)

List_of_Camp_Affirmatives_(August)[1]

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Would debaters and coaches feel comfortable with an iPad as a viewing computer? Has anyone else experimented with this yet? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

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.