Final Wordings at the end of Day 2
All of these wordings are subject to minor changes in the morning, but these are the ones that will probably be voted on in the morning. Full notes from the discussions can be found below.
1. Energy/Environment
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for development and/or use of renewable energy in the United States.
2. Income Inequality
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or consumer lending regulation in the United States.
3. Human Rights
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of one or more rights in Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
4. World Heritage Sites
R̶e̶s̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶N̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶A̶r̶a̶b̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶N̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶’̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶v̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶’̶s̶ ̶L̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶D̶a̶n̶g̶e̶r̶.̶
This topic will not advance to the ballot on Sunday at the request of the author, look at the full notes below for his reasons why.
5. Education Reform
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
6. Domestic Agriculture
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance.
7. Russia
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
8. Higher Ed
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for development and/or use of renewable energy in the United States.
2. Income Inequality
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or consumer lending regulation in the United States.
3. Human Rights
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of one or more rights in Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
4. World Heritage Sites
R̶e̶s̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶N̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶A̶r̶a̶b̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶N̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶’̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶v̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶’̶s̶ ̶L̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶D̶a̶n̶g̶e̶r̶.̶
This topic will not advance to the ballot on Sunday at the request of the author, look at the full notes below for his reasons why.
5. Education Reform
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
6. Domestic Agriculture
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance.
7. Russia
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
8. Higher Ed
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
Full notes from the Wording Committee Session
Wording Committee Session—Saturday Morning
1. Energy/Environment
Starting wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for development and/or use of renewable energy in the United States.
-There is a huge partisan divide in the literature, increasing RE is a little more balanced than increasing regulations.
-There is a basis for incentives from the past energy topic (2008?)
-Renewable vs Alt (wants to make Nuclear an option for the negative, and it minimizes licensing debate for the affirmatives).
Cort-Is there support in the literature for negative incentives (like the gov mandates a regulation and punish)
Larry-Possibly, we see a lot of state incentives now, and there are some punitive incentives
Greg-Does the word development make Renewable energy possible to be expanded?
-Larry: Maybe, but it could be developing
Me: Does this make grid improvement topical?
-Everyone….maybe, but it has to be improvement for RE allowances
Me: Do we need an its
-Cort: it is ok to have a non-its to incentivize outside development
2. Income Inequality
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or regulation of lending practices in the United States.
-Last night discussion, things like Fed Reserve policy is topical under the last portion of the resolution which would: 1) expand the topic, 2) expand beyond the core of other aspects of the resolution (he reads a list) adding commercial, or to individuals on either side of lending practices does not yield good results.
-Darin suggests including consumer in front of lending practices
-I suggest changing practice to regulation
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or consumer lending regulation in the United States.
-Do we change the name from Income Inequality?
-Rich: No, this is what the progressives pushed for
3. Human Rights
Starting Wording:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its protections of economic, social, and/or cultural rights in the United States.
-Started looking at protections in respect to rights, looking at each phrase individually, there were some limited results……Big focus on equal protection clause
Cort/David: does protections need to be plural? The answer feels like no……is it enhancing current rights?
-Alena: either way it is the same, you get to add new rights
[New Wording]: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of economic, social, and/or cultural rights in the United States.
-Constant questions of what do x type of affirmative look like in each category of rights
-Longest form of questioning comes about the need of the economic section, or does it eat up the entirety of the Income Inequality topic
The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of economic, social and/or cultural rights as defined by Article [ ] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
New working area, limit to articles?
Author coming back at 11:30 to re-evaluate this change
-Her favorite articles that she wants, 11, 15, 7
-Proposed new wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of rights in the United States as defined by Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
-Passes
-I suggest and/or
-Cort’s concern: some or all of?
-Where does in the US go
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of one or more rights in Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
4. World Heritage Sites
Resolved: The United Nations should substantially increase its protection of one or more sites in Africa on the United Nations’ World Heritage Convention’s List of World Heritage in Danger.
-Yesterday changed from support to protection (it is defined in 1977 by the UN to give more specific areas of action)
-The UN can do 6 things (Studies, experts/technicians/training, provide equipment, loans, and grants). There is not enough resources to go around, and there is no mechanism to determine which cites get aid or how it is distributed
-This resolution could allow things like adding Peacekeepers as protection could be topical.
-It is highly unlikely that something could be taken off between now and the next topic, things could be added, the body meets in the summer, so there may not be a big change during the course of the topic.
David: What is the UN doing now in terms of protection
-Kyle: Money, and some security (uses things in Syria as an example, removing stuff from an ISIS threat)
David’s Follow Up: What is the negative ground?
-Kyle: “I don’t have a great answer”…..You still have to prove that the target country will say yes or that the protection will work
Darin: What are some aff impacts outside of UN good or Cultural Genocide Bad
-Kyle: Education/History
Matt: A lot of the concern is what military groups are doing to some of these cites etc. Can’t stop groups from doing bad stuff in the squo
-Broad definition might allow other things to solve bad indigenous actors
A Handfull: Do we need to have a geographic limiter?
Coming Back at 11:45---looking at MENA/Arab States
Author decides not enough negative ground, moves to withdraw the topic
-The group agrees with the author, spending time looking for more might not solve the problem
-We can’t drop the topic now, but can at the straw poll
Resolved: The United Nations should substantially increase its protection of one or more sites in the Arab States on the United Nations’ World Heritage Convention’s List of World Heritage in Danger.
This drops after the straw vote at the suggestion of the author.
5. Education Reform
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase elementary and/or secondary educational funding in one or more of the following areas: charter schools, for-profit schools, concurrent enrollment, dual enrollment.
-After thinking about it last night, the author doesn’t like concurrent/dual together, and does not like just throwing money at something
David: WC breakfast we talked about funding and/or regulation….His proposal:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase elementary and/or secondary educational funding for and/or regulation of in one or more of the following areas: charter schools, for-profit schools, concurrent enrollment, dual enrollment.
I move to drop “areas” and it passes
-Jeff moves to change elementary and/or secondary to K-12 (nope)
-Author: do we drop it to just charter schools?
-Ruth: dropping for-profit might be bad because not all for-profit are charter schools
-Cort/Roberta: are for-profit in there regardless of the charter. For-profit tends to be mostly post-secondary
-Do we add online schools?
David proposes another topic:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its elementary and/or secondary education funding for and/or regulation in the United States. (The Newest Wording for the second proposal is below)
Author will come back with thoughts on this new proposal at 1:00
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its elementary and/or secondary education funding and/or regulation in the United States.
-Approved, now the question is do we move funding and/or regulation? (double and/or is inevitable)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. (passes)
6. Domestic Agriculture
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically-modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance, sustainable agriculture practices.
-No and/or
-added a period
-If we need to reduce anything, we could cut out crop insurance
-David moves to do so, because regulation of crop insurance might not work
-Passes, I’m the only one who sits out
-Move to drop “practices” from sustainable ag…..it passes…I dissent out of spite
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, sustainable agriculture.
-1:20 callback, look at “sustainable agriculture” vs “sustainable agricultural practices” and look at subsidies. Look at adding subsidies, look at maybe sustainable ag out, crop insurance back it.
-Rich wants crop insurance instead of sustainable agriculture
- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance.
7. Russia
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic and/or diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation.
-Concern 1: its, pressure doesn’t function the same in both economic pressure, The US can do third party things that cause economic pressure within Russia.
-David: suggests engagement
-Ruth suggests coercive diplomacy
-I defend pressure because we did it in college
-Do we add the military?
-I think that is dope
-Do we change it to coercive diplomacy?
David’s Proposed change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
Callback: 1:40—Look at pressure?
The authors like the topic as is.
-Do not like Coercive Diplomacy as it excludes economic pressure, and taking economic pressure out might kill a large part of solvency ground, they would like economic pressure and/or coercive diplomacy.
-Coercive diplomacy = threat of force, where as military pressure is use of force.
Final wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
8. Higher Ed
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase the affordability of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition stabilization, federal financial aid.
-Tuition Stabilization is not federal, its either a state or an institutional term
-Madison suggests dropping stabilization
-David: affordability creates a problem, can that be dropped? And how is tuition different from FFA?
New working wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase the affordability of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
-Mechanism
-Increase funding/and or regulation---is the proposed change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
Passes
-Some latent discussion at the end pre-straw poll, about what Tuition would be
-Sam: could we change the topic to look at “cost of entry to” or cost of attendance? Ultimately no changes were made.
1. Energy/Environment
Starting wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for development and/or use of renewable energy in the United States.
-There is a huge partisan divide in the literature, increasing RE is a little more balanced than increasing regulations.
-There is a basis for incentives from the past energy topic (2008?)
-Renewable vs Alt (wants to make Nuclear an option for the negative, and it minimizes licensing debate for the affirmatives).
Cort-Is there support in the literature for negative incentives (like the gov mandates a regulation and punish)
Larry-Possibly, we see a lot of state incentives now, and there are some punitive incentives
Greg-Does the word development make Renewable energy possible to be expanded?
-Larry: Maybe, but it could be developing
Me: Does this make grid improvement topical?
-Everyone….maybe, but it has to be improvement for RE allowances
Me: Do we need an its
-Cort: it is ok to have a non-its to incentivize outside development
2. Income Inequality
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or regulation of lending practices in the United States.
-Last night discussion, things like Fed Reserve policy is topical under the last portion of the resolution which would: 1) expand the topic, 2) expand beyond the core of other aspects of the resolution (he reads a list) adding commercial, or to individuals on either side of lending practices does not yield good results.
-Darin suggests including consumer in front of lending practices
-I suggest changing practice to regulation
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or consumer lending regulation in the United States.
-Do we change the name from Income Inequality?
-Rich: No, this is what the progressives pushed for
3. Human Rights
Starting Wording:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its protections of economic, social, and/or cultural rights in the United States.
-Started looking at protections in respect to rights, looking at each phrase individually, there were some limited results……Big focus on equal protection clause
Cort/David: does protections need to be plural? The answer feels like no……is it enhancing current rights?
-Alena: either way it is the same, you get to add new rights
[New Wording]: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of economic, social, and/or cultural rights in the United States.
-Constant questions of what do x type of affirmative look like in each category of rights
-Longest form of questioning comes about the need of the economic section, or does it eat up the entirety of the Income Inequality topic
The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of economic, social and/or cultural rights as defined by Article [ ] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
New working area, limit to articles?
Author coming back at 11:30 to re-evaluate this change
-Her favorite articles that she wants, 11, 15, 7
-Proposed new wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of rights in the United States as defined by Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
-Passes
-I suggest and/or
-Cort’s concern: some or all of?
-Where does in the US go
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection in the United States of one or more rights in Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
4. World Heritage Sites
Resolved: The United Nations should substantially increase its protection of one or more sites in Africa on the United Nations’ World Heritage Convention’s List of World Heritage in Danger.
-Yesterday changed from support to protection (it is defined in 1977 by the UN to give more specific areas of action)
-The UN can do 6 things (Studies, experts/technicians/training, provide equipment, loans, and grants). There is not enough resources to go around, and there is no mechanism to determine which cites get aid or how it is distributed
-This resolution could allow things like adding Peacekeepers as protection could be topical.
-It is highly unlikely that something could be taken off between now and the next topic, things could be added, the body meets in the summer, so there may not be a big change during the course of the topic.
David: What is the UN doing now in terms of protection
-Kyle: Money, and some security (uses things in Syria as an example, removing stuff from an ISIS threat)
David’s Follow Up: What is the negative ground?
-Kyle: “I don’t have a great answer”…..You still have to prove that the target country will say yes or that the protection will work
Darin: What are some aff impacts outside of UN good or Cultural Genocide Bad
-Kyle: Education/History
Matt: A lot of the concern is what military groups are doing to some of these cites etc. Can’t stop groups from doing bad stuff in the squo
-Broad definition might allow other things to solve bad indigenous actors
A Handfull: Do we need to have a geographic limiter?
Coming Back at 11:45---looking at MENA/Arab States
Author decides not enough negative ground, moves to withdraw the topic
-The group agrees with the author, spending time looking for more might not solve the problem
-We can’t drop the topic now, but can at the straw poll
Resolved: The United Nations should substantially increase its protection of one or more sites in the Arab States on the United Nations’ World Heritage Convention’s List of World Heritage in Danger.
This drops after the straw vote at the suggestion of the author.
5. Education Reform
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase elementary and/or secondary educational funding in one or more of the following areas: charter schools, for-profit schools, concurrent enrollment, dual enrollment.
-After thinking about it last night, the author doesn’t like concurrent/dual together, and does not like just throwing money at something
David: WC breakfast we talked about funding and/or regulation….His proposal:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase elementary and/or secondary educational funding for and/or regulation of in one or more of the following areas: charter schools, for-profit schools, concurrent enrollment, dual enrollment.
I move to drop “areas” and it passes
-Jeff moves to change elementary and/or secondary to K-12 (nope)
-Author: do we drop it to just charter schools?
-Ruth: dropping for-profit might be bad because not all for-profit are charter schools
-Cort/Roberta: are for-profit in there regardless of the charter. For-profit tends to be mostly post-secondary
-Do we add online schools?
David proposes another topic:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its elementary and/or secondary education funding for and/or regulation in the United States. (The Newest Wording for the second proposal is below)
Author will come back with thoughts on this new proposal at 1:00
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its elementary and/or secondary education funding and/or regulation in the United States.
-Approved, now the question is do we move funding and/or regulation? (double and/or is inevitable)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. (passes)
6. Domestic Agriculture
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically-modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance, sustainable agriculture practices.
-No and/or
-added a period
-If we need to reduce anything, we could cut out crop insurance
-David moves to do so, because regulation of crop insurance might not work
-Passes, I’m the only one who sits out
-Move to drop “practices” from sustainable ag…..it passes…I dissent out of spite
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, sustainable agriculture.
-1:20 callback, look at “sustainable agriculture” vs “sustainable agricultural practices” and look at subsidies. Look at adding subsidies, look at maybe sustainable ag out, crop insurance back it.
-Rich wants crop insurance instead of sustainable agriculture
- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance.
7. Russia
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic and/or diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation.
-Concern 1: its, pressure doesn’t function the same in both economic pressure, The US can do third party things that cause economic pressure within Russia.
-David: suggests engagement
-Ruth suggests coercive diplomacy
-I defend pressure because we did it in college
-Do we add the military?
-I think that is dope
-Do we change it to coercive diplomacy?
David’s Proposed change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
Callback: 1:40—Look at pressure?
The authors like the topic as is.
-Do not like Coercive Diplomacy as it excludes economic pressure, and taking economic pressure out might kill a large part of solvency ground, they would like economic pressure and/or coercive diplomacy.
-Coercive diplomacy = threat of force, where as military pressure is use of force.
Final wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.
8. Higher Ed
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase the affordability of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition stabilization, federal financial aid.
-Tuition Stabilization is not federal, its either a state or an institutional term
-Madison suggests dropping stabilization
-David: affordability creates a problem, can that be dropped? And how is tuition different from FFA?
New working wording:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase the affordability of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
-Mechanism
-Increase funding/and or regulation---is the proposed change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of higher education in the United States in one or more of the following areas: loan programs, tuition, federal financial aid.
Passes
-Some latent discussion at the end pre-straw poll, about what Tuition would be
-Sam: could we change the topic to look at “cost of entry to” or cost of attendance? Ultimately no changes were made.