[eDebate] Debaters who became policy makers

helwich at macalester.edu helwich
Wed Apr 18 22:59:47 CDT 2007


Ross may be a bit surprised, but I tend to agree with him on this question.

Most of the agency concerns that Andy identifies are solved by switching sides. Compelling one side to defend 'USFG' means the other side gets all other competitive options, which can include individual action, mass mobilization, non-action, etc. The old-fashioned "Movements DA' allows a negative team to do so without falling afoul of the fiat police. 

Likewise, a person can enjoy policy debate and still direct their political activities outside of official institutional channels. I have still not heard a compelling reason why it is bad for disestablishmentarians to work to understand how institutions work.

best,
dch
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Ross K. Smith" <smithr at wfu.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Debaters who became policy makers
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:45:25 -0400
Size: 7898
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070418/4d677321/attachment.eml 



More information about the Mailman mailing list