Free Briefs Out Tomorrow!
at
We are extremely proud to announce that tomorrow we are once again able to provide the best quality briefs absolutely free of charge. There is simply nowhere else to go to get a file like this one. Make sure to go sign up over at the camp site and the briefs will be in your inbox tomorrow. While you are there take a look at the site, take a look at the faculty and consider applying. We are able to produce such a helpful product free of charge due to the tremendous effort and intellect of our core staff; if you find these briefs helpful there is no doubt that you will learn a lot at the Premier Debate Institute this summer.
premierdebate
Premier Debate's mission is to inspire excellence by empowering debaters to think critically and push the boundaries of their education. Premier Debate runs summer camps for high school debaters, provides coaching during the season, and hosts online resources for debaters during the season, including our topic briefs, which reach thousands of debaters around the country.
11 Comments
Hello,
I know that this is probably not possible…but if you haven’t already, could you please try to include or post a few pieces of evidence (for U.S. spec) talking about how the USFG adopting a certain minimum wage increases softpower and/or EU relations, etc? That would be most appreciated and excellent.
As a coach and former debater, I absolutely love this initiative that y’all at premierdebate are taking. I remember growing up, in a disadvantaged school, having to spend countless hours in a public library to find a certain piece of evidence. Of course, the advent of the internet takes care of this problem, but only partially. Some schools are extremely well-off, with excellent coaches and resources, while others are severely disadvantaged. I personally come from a policy background, having been a former CEDA debater, and I thus believe that raw work ethic can overcome many disadvantages. But then again, hard work requires direction, and direction is often best provided by resources. Having found myself in this fascinating game of LD debate, my experiences as a policy debater have transferred over into my teaching philosophy. I think that LD debate is an incredible forum for policy-oriented argumentation (or LARP-ing, like these younger debaters like to call it), and I personally find pure, solely normative hypothesis testing / strictly traditional value-criterion uneducational (as most debates I’ve seen devolve into both debaters conceding the terminal impacts, and trying to win purely off exclusionary frameworks and/or construing the entire resolution into a weird, abusive form – to be honest, if you’re going to do either of these things: wanna try real, advocacy-based debate). But, then again, I respect all forms of debate – I dislike public forum for example, but I sure would prefer public forum over quitting speech n debate – and all approaches taken within these different formats (excluding explicitly unacceptable behavior or rhetoric). And that’s another huge reason why I respect what y’all are doing – everything y’all post is inclusive to all types of debaters: you include information for traditionals, normative freaks, theory-addicts, LARP-ers, etc. And, although I teach my kids to LARP – and not like most LD’ers do it, I mean literally LARP-ing as hard as possible: I train them alongside my policy kids -, I know that others styles are also perfectly fair-game.
So back to my question: to clarify things, this would be something this supplement the research that students are currently doing (I don’t just write their 1ac’s and blocks). I know that there is some softpower lit and such, but I haven’t been able to adequately tap into it. Additionally, one of my kids is trying to carve out a EU relations advantage, but is struggling to find good enough solvency advocates – obviously, some do exist, but again…I don’t believe that we’ve digged deep enough into the literature. And that’s why I would sincerely appreciate a little boost or helping hand, whether it be in the incoming brief or through a post.
Thank you lots, and I really appreciate y’all’s initiative. Keep up the good work. Peace.
-Jake
Hey Jake,
We took a look around, but were not able to find much. Really enjoyed your story and if we end up finding something we’ll make sure to let people know. Keep up the good work!
I really searched for this evidence but there really wasn’t anything. It’d be really strategic to have a relations-type advantage so the aff doesn’t have to engage in a big economic solvency debate and can still get its advantages. The best I could find was a few snippets from democratic senators saying something to the effect of “the U.S. minimum wage is an embarrassment,” but they were never any more specific about how that might be a global problem or affect U.S. credibility. If it’s the impact that really matters (i.e. just solving soft power), then you could go for a crime advantage – there’s a card that’s been read on all the criminal justice topics of late about how crime in the U.S. harms its international image and therefore its soft power. I don’t remember the author name but maybe another commenter can help us out.
One area I didn’t explore much but could help is international law lit about labor rights/minimum wage. Alternatively, you could search for statements from specific countries, but that might not get you exactly what you want.
Thank you for taking the time and helping me out. In the last few days of research, I’ve reached a similar conclusion – there doesn’t seem to be a very strong lit base on this (although like you pointed out, a relations-type advantage would be incredibly strategic in terms of evading generic econ solvency slugouts). And thank you for proposing the idea of researching I-Law lit – if the lit base is strong, I can see how such an advantage could be of equal utility. Once again, I sincerely appreciating y’all taking the time to help me out, and keep up the good work. Your initiative is absolutely excellent, and more debaters should check out what y’all do. Peace.
hey try this, could help a bit. just something my coach found
record (dayle. TTIP. december 12, two thousand 14. geopolitics expert.)
To EU TTIP and Zeke. There’s a power to modeling that, in its simplest terms, cannot be underestimated. Citing IR theorists like Chomsky, the EU has evolved greatly. The lens of historical deconstruction in this is invaluable, though thinkers like Mearsheimer would value a more theoretical construction – a thought experiment per se. But what one loses by subscribing to one mode is often balanced several fold by its eventual ends, as cliché as the phrase has become. The EU was initially formed as a union, but has, as often noted by observant watchers, morphed into a more autonomous entity. Like Chomsky notes, the EU’s role has shifted from a conglomerate to an institution; from a multinational to its own nation-state. From the economic geography to geopolitics, its thingness is no longer defined by cluster of European entities, but now a personal set of interests, analogous to the psychology of the nation-state or politik-al entity. Like Nietzsche, the death of the grave can mean only, psychologically, a new resurrection; with death comes reformation, followed by new life. And, the irony manifest, as Nietzsche inserts life into death, he recreates the Judeo-Christianic tradition that he deems philosophically bankrupt. But moving beyond this irony, an application of this concept is apparent in the EU’s thingness, its very psychology. Rosenberg argues that the EU is pushing the TTIP, which would obstruct our ability to increase current levels of minimum wages, on the federal (U.S.) or on a level of smaller subdivision. However, this is false on several levels. First of all, the TTIP is secretive for a reason – it isn’t a real piece of agreement being bargained or negotiated. But moving beyond this, second: agreement on the TTIP would be completely out of line, given the EU’s past track record and psychological tendencies. Remember that months ago, the EU complained about absolute capitalism and Chomsky’s “profit over people.” They, in fact, want the U.S. to enact a minimum wage of up to 60% of the average. The EU, who wants to establish a standard of minimum wage across European entities, wants to do the same with us, perhaps. The EU has become an entity of its own: the most benevolent of all nation-states perhaps, but undeniably a nation-state. And like what is, there isn’t; with what isn’t, there is. The EU, like I have stated earlier, has ambitions to project its desires onto other nations. This is somewhat analogous to the behavior of a nation-state – the U.S. forcing democracy on developing countries, or setting up military bases in the Middle East under the name of “anti-terrorism.” And, continuing the fitting metaphor, geopolitics becomes leverage, a source of blackmail. The EU knows that all nation-states, including the U.S., depend on the ability to aid them in their own, realist geopolitical ambitions. And while the EU would never explicitly blackmail the U.S. (and nor is the modeling of European minimum wage likely to ever be a source of monocausality), my point is clear: I don’t think that there is any way that the TTIP will be passed. The EU’s commitment to the minimum wage as a political bargaining chip is simply too great, in my opinion, to allow agreement on the TTIP. It just seems out of line, in my humble opinion, with the EU’s pattern(s) of behavior for them to undo years of work and suddenly reverse their commitment to the working class. I’ll be the first to admit it – I am by no means qualified to posit these ideas myself – however, I feel that many IR theorists would agree (though many would also disagree, perhaps). Thus I retract the absolute-ness of my previous statement: TTIP could be passed, potentially, but there are good reasons to believe otherwise also. Realism is usually that way – unpredictable.
wow is actually a real gem. y’all gotta share this with more ppl; good stuf
Error 403 when accessing the drop box link for the January-February topicality brief for LD. Please Help!
Fixed. Everyone can download at premierdebate.com/briefs
How is it that you access the briefs? I’m having trouble locating them to download.
Try this http://foundation.mavenup.com/briefs
hey abe: that evidence is more than just a gem, it’s fire!!!! thakz bruh