[eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra

andy ellis andy.edebate
Thu May 24 13:35:05 CDT 2007


Doesnt all this prove its not small

-----Original Message-----
From: "Danielle Verney" <daisy_verney at hotmail.com>
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 5/24/2007 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra

Maybe because "Resolved:  The United States Federal Government should 
legalize marijuana" would be a bad rez.  Primarily its way too small, and 
being small makes it less bad that its vague.  But even as small as it is 
still vague.
Does the Federal Government just have to get rid of its own criminal 
sanctions dealing with marijuana - leaving state laws in place, or does it 
have to prempt state laws as well.
Do you have to legalize the sale, distribution, and production of marijuana, 
or only possession and use?
Do you have to make it legal for all ages, or is over 18 fine?
Do you have to make it legal for all uses - or could I have a restricted 
medical marijuana aff?
What about making it legal for domestic growth but still keeping out those 
treacherous Mexican and Canadian buds?
Some of these are silly, but many are serious - and crafting a resolution 
that answers some of these questions is worth the cost of some elegance.

It really ain't that hard - and the resolutions just ain't that ugly.

Tom O'Gorman
tomogorman at gmail.com

>From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
>To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:09:08 -0700
>
>
>
>Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him.  I still 
>don't get no sugar for it, though.  Well, he winks back occasionally...
>
>No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee.  I think a big 
>part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much 
>effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions.  
>Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product 
>reflects that.   The topic committee, after the huge effort put into 
>resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved:  The 
>United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana."  That just 
>seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional 
>and personal resources devoted to resolutions.
>
>So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should 
>increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: 
>Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, 
>and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral 
>security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security 
>guarantee(s)."  now, THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a 
>fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv worthy of GM!!!
>
>And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government is 
>putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois 
>writing things like:
>
>"There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and somewhat 
>jargonistic"  Yes, a little.  And because the Middle East is... wordy and 
>jargonistic or something...  Good point.  I will not cheap-shot by pointing 
>out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the Middle 
>East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional 
>suicide-bombers.
>
>"Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you 
>should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale...  
>but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is 
>insulting and condescending...  I don't even know you and I'm bothered. How 
>does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web 
>page?"  I am not tasting the honey there, Dale...  Where's MY sugar, bitch?
>
>"Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of 
>more complicated phrasing."  No... they aren't posers, either.  They would 
>see it for what it is.
>"the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it 
>creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs 
>outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates."  Yeah, I 
>had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... 
>that other word... you know...  that one of which Akon sings.  Yes, these 
>resolutions are "precise".  They are "precise" in the same way as the 
>steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise".
>
>Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her 
>coffee...
>
>Michael Korcok
>_________________________________________________________________
>Change is good. See whats different about Windows Live Hotmail.
>www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507


>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507





More information about the Mailman mailing list