[eDebate] andy peterson's thoughts on China as the agent
Thu Apr 21 09:43:22 CDT 2005
1. Passive voice solves nothing. A good deal of Andy's post is why China
as an actor makes it impossible to win on the negative. If Andy is right,
including the passive voice means that smart affirmatives will choose China
over the US as an agent, and negatives will be going for normativity as
their A strategy.
2. Some expert posting about why the China agent is bad doesn't necessarily
end the debate on this, but, so far the defense of non-US agents amounts to
"wouldn't it be cool if" as opposed to a serious literature-based analysis.
I imagine if someone was willing to refute or disprove Andy's arguments, or
the arguments about the EU two years ago, and actually demonstrate that good
debates were possible for both sides, then a non-US agent topic might be
3. I don't know about the "non-communist nations" topic; I didn't debate 30
years ago and it seems that someone like Southworth is more qualified to
comment on this subject than any of us. In any case, Andy's point seems to
be not that debate is impossible under such a topic, but that the quality of
the debates would be substantially inferior. It also seems that the
"non-communist nations" topic wasn't subject to the literature questions
that have been raised about China; there are a lot of articles about the
alliance system vs. communism, after all.
More information about the Mailman