quaters are underway

[Almas T Sayeed]

Does anyone know if Northwestern is still running F-16's?
thanks
almas
university of pittsburgh

>From  Mon Mar 30 13:31:28 1998
Message-Id: <MON.30.MAR.1998.133128.0800.>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:31:28 -0800
Reply-To: slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Eric Slusher <slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: New Topic Area
In-Reply-To: <01IVA28NLEIY907E7E at selu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Geez...once again my good pal Scott Elliot jumps into the Civil Rights fray and
makes little sense.  Gonna defend some of these bold assertions?

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, MWilliams <mgremillion at SELU.EDU> wrote:
>
>If that were the only issue Klemz, then Less Filling/Tastes Great would be the
>topic. I find the "you get to choose an alternate agent of action" to be
>quite hollow as a justification for ground on the Civil Rights topic.  Sure,
>Sure, I'll be there pissing people off running the repugnant stuff that NEEDS
>to be run on such a topic.

NEEDS to be run on such a topic?  NEEDS to be run?  I guess I'm unclear.  In the
abscence of an explanation I'll assume you mean that in order to have a
meaningfull issue oriented discussion...which you'll essentialize down to rights
good vs. rights bad...the negative would have to engage in straight up impact
refutation, i.e. racism good.  I find this view of the negative to be a hollow
argument against the topic.  I think this is similar to Lechtreck's argument
that a rez should have a refutable harm area in it....like on the increased
punishment topic you knew every round you could say punishment is bad.  Maybe
this is a criticism I missed on the southeast asia topic.  Sure, I guess you
could say Security Assistance is bad but how often did that happen.  Really, I
mean how often did a negative read a case dump indicting SA.  Most often it
happend in the form of an alternate mech counterplan which had some
securitization net-benifit or something.  Did you complain that these strategies
de-focused the topic?  The negative has progressed a bit since '94 when we
debated our last value topic...which obviously has a directional value easy to
negate...that's the purpose of a rez of fact.
You know, I really don't see how it's hard to argue increased rights protection
is bad if you've got a grass-roots movements or similar argument going along
with it.  If you wanna debate the args you call "repugnant" you have that option
as well....just don't go saying that there's no negative ground this time
around.  For god's sake you screamed last year that the negative was hosed on a
CR topic because they had no ground to stand on...now you have more ground than
you can handle and you've resorted to saying that we'll ignore issue oriented
discussion because the negative looks too good.  Yet, somehow you still ignore
my answers back to those arguments - they were in posts from earlier today.


>But, for the most part, the Civil Rights topic is
>going to be nothing more than a Clinton Cred. debate. Little will be said
>about the relative merits of case. Why? Because in our little world is made up
>of "Tree Huggin' Hippie crap." (Thank You children of SOUTH PARK). You ain't
going to when the Extending Civil rights like Gay Marriage, interracial adoption
>by arguing the merits of case. It just ain't going to happen. Now, arguing to
>lift trade sanctions to Cuba has some debatability, as does issues regarding
>the limits of biotechnology. The Sex topic is just plain fun to talk about.
>If it comes down to debatability, I believe the human sexuality topic area
>offers more balance than extending civil rights. In fact, Slusher has even said
>that the literature offers little to nothing on repealing or reducing civil
>rights.

Whoa, there bud, I only said that literature might not support a _year_ of
reduced affirmative action good.  That's a very specific area and the best lit
really isn't going that way right now.  I'm begining to think that you don't
wanna think strategically from a negative standpoint.  I've said over and over
that negative options are plentifull.  The arguments are out there...they may
not neccessarily be the ones you wanna run...and a court counterplan is more
than a generic strategy on this topic.  In lots of affirmative articles you'll
find cards for court action....what you think is a generic clinton debate will
actually be germaine to the case in many instances.  You're choosing to ignore
what's out there.

slusher