#consult cp

[usefuldebatecards]

Who has a Tumblr debate blog and hates Consult CPs? THIS GUY.

One of the big problems with the Consult CP is the problem of defining what it means to consult. This is Paul Wolfowitz, who has a lot of experience with international relations and consultation, offering a very concise definition of consultation with a internal reference to a historical event.

 Perm: Call [insert country] twenty-four hours ahead of time and inform them of the plan. Context proves that this is considered consultation. Wolfowitz 09 (Paul,  Former Deputy Secretary of Defence from 2001-2005. "A Conversation with Paul Wolfowitz" at the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Part of the two-day conference, "When Walls Came Tumbling Down: Berlin, 9/11, and U.S. Strategy in Uncertain Times."  10/26/09 http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/id/214425) It's interesting. If you tell someone you're about to do something 24 Hours before you do it, it's consultation. If you tell them 24 hours after you've done it, which is 36 hours after they've read it in the press, it's, as the Japanese call it, a “Shocku.”

[usefuldebatecards]

Reading a card in a theory violation? We got a bad ass over here.

In contrast to the previous post, this is I think the far better card from Casey Harrigan's article. It's debate specific, has some really good warrants and impacts, and just makes sense. I think this card should be in every 2A's blocks. (Casey Harrigan has since moved on from his post at the University of Georgia to become the Director of Debate at Michigan State.)

I hope this is the most meta this blog will be for some time.

Consult CPs lack real world applicability, use evidence out of context, and destroy aff ground to answer them back. Gutting both fairness and education in debate.  Harrigan 09 (Casey, Associate Director of Debate at the University of Georgia and former NDT champion.  http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/10/goodbye-consult-cp)  Second, absence of specific literature has made it difficult, if not “impossible” for Aff teams to produce specific answers. News to the world: the consult CP does not exist. It is made up. The USFG would not, and will not, give another country veto-power over our actions, foreign or domestic. Ever. Bush wouldn’t. Early signs suggest Obama won’t, either.  Why? Because it is absurd. Multilateralism and cooperation are one thing.  Clearly subordinating the interests of one state to another, especially when the “consulting” state is populated by politicians who have been elected to serve the interests of their own country, is something entirely different.  So, why is consultation an argument at all, if no evidence has been written about it? Well, Neg teams have been playing fast-and-loose with their interpretation of terms like “prior,” “binding,” “genuine,” in evidence about consulting. 

[usefuldebatecards]

Sayonara Consult CP, we hardly knew ye

To get a good understanding of why a lot of the debate community absolutely loathes the Consult Counterplan you should read Casey Harrigan's long post about it from the Nuke Topic on the Georgia Debate blog. Needless to say it's an abusive CP that drives judges and debaters up the wall and usually relies on evidence cut completely out of context. 

This card is Casey Harrigan's retort to the Consult CP, and it's a card that should probably be in every squad's backfiles. Enjoy.

Binding consultation crushes U.S. leadership

Carroll 9 (James FF, Notes & Comments Editor – Emory International Law Review, J.D. with Honors – Emory University School of Law, “Back to the Future: Redefining the Foreign Investment and National Security Act's Conception of National Security”, Emory International Law Review, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 167, Lexis)

n221. See Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed., 9/11 is Over, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2007, § 4, at 12. This does not mean, however, that foreign countries should hold a veto over U.S. foreign or domestic policies, particularly policies that are not directly related to their national survival. Allowing foreign countries or international institutions to veto or modify unrelated U.S. policies would make a mockery of our foreign policy and destroy the credibility of American leadership. International cooperation does not require making our policy subservient to the whims of other nations. See generally The Allies and Arms Control (F.O. Hampson et al. eds., 1992). Seealso Khalilzad, supra note 177.