[eDebate] new topic paper on Global warming Reply to Andy
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Thu Jun 21 12:20:42 CDT 2007
I agree with you Andy. That is my main concern. I mean, people can vote for
whatever topic they want. I still think genetic engineering is a better topic
than this Mid-East. I fell my only responsibility is to offer people a topic
area AND resolutions that are worth a damn. Obviously, global warming is
important topic. It is extremely difficult to craft a resolution that is
balanced and forces students to actually debate global warming reduction or
mitigation. If you don't have something that says the plan must mandate a
substantial reduction in global warming, then teams will run from the debate.
Maybe that is how to craft the resolution.
Example: Resolved the United States Federal Government should mandate a
substantial reduction in Global Warming enforced through legislation,
regulation or formal international agreement.
Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:
> I understand the problems with the Kyoto treaty, but i fear that any
> regulatory scheme or other "policy" approach allows too much non warming
> debate to occur, to let for example the aff to claim tangential benefits to
> a regulatory scheme that like on the nergy topicc avoids the warming debate
> allows the backfileism that drive current topics to flourish and thrive for
> those that want the qucikest escape from the contriversy they can ....but it
> was just an idea...
> On 6/20/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> > David makes good points. What is sad is that it appears the "real world"
> > policy
> > makers' concerns for short term impacts are blinding them to really making
> > necessary changes. The new time frames are now less than ten years. I
> > guess
> > global warming will not ever become a viable topic of policy
> > debate--either the
> > impacts are too long term for viable affirmatives, or by the time an
> > affirmative
> > can claim timely impacts, it will be too late to solve. The problem I
> > always had
> > with any of the warming debates was that no change in U.S. domestic
> > policy--I
> > believe the resoltution called for U.S. Regulations--really affects India
> > and
> > China. Those solvency take outs were and are just too damn good. That is
> > the
> > key hole with the Kyoto treaty by the way--China and India get a free
> > pass, and
> > they are out polluting the U.S.
> > My conclusion: I will continue to use multiple pieces of toilet paper in
> > spite
> > of Sheyl Crow, drive my Toyota Tundra and run my air conditioner full
> > blast. We
> > might as well be comfortable if the whole world is going to hell and there
> > is
> > nothing that can be done about it.
> > Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
More information about the Mailman