[eDebate] Consultantion Args from Johnny Prieur
Tue Oct 9 23:05:38 CDT 2007
The way consultation CPs are read currently negates any of the
benefits that Johnny thinks they bring to debate.
Nobody reads Consultation CPs the way that Johnny is talking about
them. Johnny is talking about CPs that include a third-party, which
significantly changes the nature of the plan. This is not the same
thing as the Consultation CP - the Third-Party CP assumes that Syria,
for example, is included COMPLETELY in any diplomatic initiative that
the US has with Lebanon (i.e. Syria has a seat at the table
throughout the implementation of the plan and is an integral part of
the diplomatic framework that is set up post the plan). This is
different from the "Consult Syria" CP which just has a Yes/No
component to it. I think the Third-Party CP is much cooler, but
obviously it is less strategic for the negative - they have to deal
with US-Syria Relations Bad, any significant modifications that Syria
wants would be much bigger solvency deficits, triangular relations
DAs, a much stronger hegemony argument, maybe some competition
Johnny says consult is timely and meaningful to debate - see above.
Can you imagine the US doing the Consult Syria CP? "Hey, we're going
to strengthen the Lebanese central government so that it can stand up
on its own and kick out Syrian influence. You can say yes, no, or you
can modify our idea in an embarrassingly minor way. Whaddya say?" I
don't think that style of consultation CP informs debaters about the
benefits of diplomacy - it is just a shallow gesture that, at most,
creates a Coalition of the Willing.
Of course this probably means that the affirmative should win the
"Say No" debate, but I think that is balanced out by the arguments
others have made about why consultation CPs are unpredictable, the
low level of scrutiny applied to genuine consultation cards, etc.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Steven D'Amico wrote:
> Forwarded from Johnny,
> Someone mentioned this thread to me and I decided to check it out.
> I don't have much time for a discussion so this will be my only
> post. But nobody seemed to be saying it and I thought it should
> be said...
> How can you disregard consultation CPs on a diplomacy topic?
> The topic specifically calls for a diplomatic engagement
> (consultation) ultimately producing an offer (proposal of the plan)
> that can be either accepted or rejected (its binding).
> Granted, it is not a perfect parallel - we don't give Japan any
> foreign assistance under "genuine consultation" - but its pretty
> damn close. Doesn't the topic itself seem to imply that the
> practice of engagement and diplomatic negotiation is in and of
> itself significant?
> I mean really, how can you credibly discuss Lebanon without also
> thinking about Syria? Afghanistan without Pakistan? Iran without
> If your response is just "that is ok disad ground but not as a CP"
> than you have missed the point of this topic - not only that there
> is value even if the offer is rejected, but more broadly the
> importance of diplomacy and the give-and-take nature of the
> international political system.
> I think that that idea (its a disad not a cp) is exactly what has
> got the current administration in a host of trouble, not wanting to
> hear or respect the opinions of its allies and instead choosing to
> just deal with the consequences. Maybe these types of arguments
> are more than timely...
> Johnny Prieur
> University of Miami
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman