[eDebate] Run a Topical Aff you K Freaks

[RustyHubb at aol.com]

Ok, if my understanding of the resolution is correct, the aff can only choose to ratify one or more treaties from the 5 that were selected.  CEDAW IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TREATIES!  I'm sure some people think CEDAW may have some shred of merit, but that is not an option for affs this year.  If you as a debater or judge legitmize this absurd practice you are contributing to the demise of this activity.  What's to stop teams from saying shit like "we think the int'l landmine treaty significantly effects women so we feel that denying discussion over this treaty reinforces masculine domination in IR and is an injustice to humankind" or any other fucking treaty that effects women or minorities or whatever else those who are bitter their favorite treaty in the topic didn't make the list??  NOTHING!!! DONT YOU THINK ITS A LITTLE UNPREDICTABLE TO INSTITUTE THIS STANDARD?? The answer to that question is yes if you couldn't figure out that brain buster.  The slippery slope argument is true, if you allow one case thats not in the resolution to be run, you allow for 1,000 cases.  Now, I dont know about everyone else but I think it's a little fucking difficult to prepare for let alone predict what cases could potentially be germane to the resolution.  Teams that run cases like CEDAW should never win an aff round because they're not topical and negs should never lose to this aff because their T defense is terrible.  So do me a favor, if you are aff, run one of the five cases that is allowed no matter how much it pains you, and if you are neg, sack up and go for the argument that is correct-THE AFF WILL LOSE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TOPICAL (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS IS GENOCIDE OR NOT!) Also, I dont care what anyone says, Ross rules.
This email is gender-paraphrased ;)

Russ Hubbard
UK Debate