-Remove the specific oceans, and change it to Earth's oceans. The argument is that the boundaries of oceans etc. might be difficult
-Changing to Earth's oceans makes it more about the oceans and less about territorial disputes
-Tim: lets learn from the space topic, will military cases dominate this topic, and is that bad?
-Author: Intent is to stay away from that area, it could be accessible but not the author's desire
-Bill: ports may not be a big part, because ports are not necessarially on the oceans….
-Ruth: we could develop ports around the world
-Should we add non-military, or scientific exploration and/or economic development
-Rich: Wording of last topic and home school topic of allowing Marine Natural Resources gets away from military aspects, the current topic allows a different direction….
-Duane: why worry, the military will be there regardless, and the community likes it so why is it an issue
-Bruce: no word in the topic limits anything…..that's a little scary, it is huge
-Table chatter, yeah this is huge, and we don’t know what to do
-Randy: Can you ditch exploration and say economic development, does that limit anything….
-Ruth Kay: the word development is explosive, and if we limited it we would take out development and not exploration.
-Author: Huge may not be bad, variety keeps kids interesting, or judges learn more and are more engaged….
-Bill: this wording is more attractive
-Bruce: Space topic is a false analogy, because of limited technologies…we can do anything in the oceans with technology….maybe limit to one ocean, or change the mechanism
Tara: Antithesis of 03-04 topic…..what if we added the word resources to the end, is it oceans as passageways vs what the oceans give us
-Tim: We could just limit it to the arctic, there is a ton of stuff that we can do up there, could be a future topic paper, and not a huge shift….
-Author: Uncomfortable, nto fully researched by me, because there are jurisdictional questions etc.
-Tim: Types of cases will be similar areas to space, like using climate sats to look at oceans is reasonably topical….there are still several huge parallels…
-Pam, its still broad, what if we add resources
-Ruth: no, anything can be considered a resource
-Greg: what if we center on fisheries etc.
-Stefan: limiting it might make it worse, to get support it we need a limiter, we might not know what it is…..
-Bill: Fishing might kill it, while it may be huge, people may not know that or care….
The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.
-Noah is going to look for a limiter, come back at 2:45
Middle East Discussion
The United States federal government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of the following: Egypt; Iran; Israel; the Palestinian Authority; Saudi Arabia.
-Long discussion of the phrasing of Palestinian Authority
-Tara: Constructive Engagement
-CE: What about the says yes/no
-Tim: The offer makes some of our advantage areas bigger
-Stefan: Could be unilateral action, or QPQ, it goes both ways
-It works with allies, because we do the elements of what CE is, includes our normal actions
-Tom: anything could be constructive engagement
-Randy: get rid of the or, change commas to semi-colons
-Duane: Is Israel unpopular, (I'll put in my response)
-Tim: the def of CD is limiting to the one small action, and someone says we can't debate Cuba and we are, so Israel may be the same boat
-Rich: Same thing about cuba…Conversations with David….there was no real issue…and its not worded to be anti-israel.
-Do we need 5?
-Rich: new policy directions from Kerry might call upon the whole region
-Susan: Parallel to the treaties topic, we have 5….and Israel and P
-Tim likes resolution A, it is easier to identify what a control is towards Israel
-So we are going with A, the original one
-The four countries are fine
-RK: military and/or dual use
-T checks back some of the big and squarely…..
-Dual use may be too big
-Came in late from the bathroom
-Pam: are term limits topical?
-Rich: The resolution is narrow, so you can be bidirectional….neg can still defend the squo to check that
-Pam: is in the us redundant with its?
-Regulation of elections vs election law
Working wording: The United States federal government should substantially strengthen its regulation of federal elections in the United States.
-Cort: the states control many of the procedures……they are state elections….if you want to limit out US action is to say in the united states at the end
-Its is not a bad redundancy
-Tim: what are some areas of core negative ground or disads
-States, federalism, Cap vs Democracy
The United States federal government should require higher education institutions in the United States to substantially increase student success.
-Student success ins an emergent term, and people working in the industry use it, and there are now offices that use "student success" in the title.
-It includes all of the topics of access, persistence, degree attainment and/or affordability.
Duane: what stops all colleges from giving 4.0's
-Chris: there is a risk on any topic, the ballot checks that itself, and you may use…that might stop things
-Ruth: success checks that, you need to support the student to do that
-Kevin (co-author): it is a question of the outcomes, so a 4.0 is an outcome, but its not that realistic….
-Tim: I am problematic with Require, things may not necessarially be in their control, the student has to do it, the institution may not be able to implement….you can put in consequences for non-achievement, but you cannot mandate success.
-Chris: that makes some sense with the word require being a punishment/or fiat oriented….
-Student success is operationally defined to a few finite things, you can increase access or attainability, there are policy mechanisms for that…..the "concept of success" is not what is being described, we are looking at the context of Student Success
-Tim reads a long list of things that may not work in this vain…..
-Roberta: Student success is a huge catch-all you need a measuring stick, and look at institutions, what about MOOCS
-Bill: Look at some of the NCLB regulations, you can put pressure on kids or change frameworks of teaching etc.
-Rich: student success is a big term now, but it is mushy, it is too many things
-I suggest mirroring the 99-2000 resolution, which everyone likes
-we explore all of the possibilities of what "establishing a policy would look like"
Pam's working change:
-The United States federal government should establish a policy for higher educational institutions in the United States to substantially increase its student success.
-Several people play with it
-The United States federal government should establish a higher education policy substantially increasing its support for student success.