[eDebate] Topic Wordings
Thu May 24 20:40:41 CDT 2007
Thanks for the question. You will notice that the phrase "substantial
increase in foreign assistance" was retained because there is a reasonable
defense of quantitative approaches to making an item like foreign assistance
larger. The nature of fiscal matters lends itself well to such comparisons.
At the same time this was not true for the relatively few and discrete items
known as security guarantees. They tend to be much fewer thus making the
scale of increase less significant because each one is important.
It was also less relevant for constructive engagement because the scope of
the increase was provided elsewhere (with assistance or guarantees) and also
because the term substantially might imply without condition or
qualification. It was our impression that constructive engagement was very
much a negotiated (conditioned, tied, bargained, etc) term and adding any
phrase that would provide no unique limiting role and also weaken the basic
meaning of the term was not advisable.
Thanks. Let me know if that makes sense.
Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913
From: Logan Martin [mailto:lmarti24 at du.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:17 AM
To: stables at usc.edu
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings
Dear Dr. Stables:
I'm sure this was discussed at the topic meeting, but what was the rationale
for the omission of "substantially" from the resolution choices? Not making
any judgements on this one way or the other, just thought it was notable.
University of Denver
logan.martin at du.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman