Debate Central outages

Alfred C. Snider asnider
Thu Sep 4 19:11:10 CDT 1997

AM of Thursday 9-4 unexpected power outage at our new swank digs at 475
Main Street caused service interruption.

Between the time it came back on (approx. 11:30 AM) and now (7:10 PM) there
were 379 users. *Whew*

>From  Thu Sep  4 15:56:43 1997
Message-Id: <THU.4.SEP.1997.155643.0500.>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:56:43 -0500
Reply-To: Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jack Rogers <Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU>
Subject: Need help contacting British
Comments: To: Parli at, Pikap-L at,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

UT-Tyler is considering a trip to England. We are hoping to set up some
exhibition debates with Oxford and Cambridge and other colleges and
universities; however, we have no point of contact. Could someone out there
please send us some contact information for the various debating societies
over there. We would greatly appreciate your help. Jack

>From  Thu Sep  4 19:52:05 1997
Message-Id: <THU.4.SEP.1997.195205.0400.>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:52:05 -0400
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Alternative agent counter-plans
Comments: To: amoburg- at

In a message dated 97-09-04 18:52:22 EDT, you write:

<< if i can't fiat vietnam to give up its claim to the spratly's why can i
 fiat vietnam to particpiate in ASEAN negotiations about giving up its

 Aaron Moburg-Jones
 Gonzaga Debate


Because ASEAN negotiations never start that specifically. The
consensus-building procedures underlying ASEAN negotiations work in the
opposite reaction. Instead of starting off with specific policy objectives,
ASEAN negotiation (particularly ARF) start with a problem recognizable by all
participants and try to achieve unanimous consensus.

Example: When Chinese troops did their flag-planting thang on selected
Spratleys this spring, and the Phillipinos started shooting, ASEAN resolved
the crisis by convincing everyone that there was too much risk of escalation
and that immediate actions needed to stop on both sides. They're still
talking, but at least they're not shooting. Did they convince both sides to
give up their claims? No way! Did they solve all future problems that might
arise in the South China Sea? Absolutely not! But they did solve the
immediate crisis through confidence-building dialogues which helped both
sides to at least make the committment to continue to try to resolve future
crises through such dialogues. (The ev on how this is the only real way to
moderate China rocks!) The comparison seems to be which solves better -
dialogues preventing escalatory crises or US security assistance.  Neither
seems to be particularly effective at solving root problems, but one seems
empirically far more effective at preventing escalation and not polarizing

By the way, this doesn't need to be a counterplan. The ev on ASEAN solving
its own problems is really good. The link ev on how US action reduces the
probability of ASEAN consensus by causing inter-ASEAN polarization is also
very good. The impact, at a minimum, involves turning any case impact
relating to escalation. The aff. will probably read some of the many cards
that exist from ASEAN participants saying that US presence is critical. The
answer to that is they certainly do want our presence in these consensus
negotiations, but they don't want us taking the lead or telling them what
will be done.

I say arguing this position as a disad helps avoid the temptation to be
abusive with ASEAN fiat.

Random thoughts,

To my future employers: Consider the personal motives of anyone who
recommends that you make hiring decisions based off an e-mail list. At a
minimum, look up their posts, too. You might be surprised....

More information about the Mailman mailing list