[eDebate] South America?
Sat Apr 5 13:25:55 CDT 2008
Anyone claiming we can't get huge impacts from Latin America must have eaten a big bowl of stupid...this "concern" is at the top of every topic discussion...as if debating oppression or poverty would break your soul! We will always find the huge impacts...let's try discussing exactly what those impacts are and if they are desirable
This discussion should be changed to "Latin America". "South America" is way too small. Yes,there are tons of impacts/issues of trade, environment, terror,etc....the diversity of issues within those issues is lacking (ie., how many terror cases could there be?). Opening the field to "Latin America" would include Mexico down to Peru and Argentina...On the HS topic, there was discussion about whether or not to include Cuba, Haiti and/or the Dominican Republic...of the three, many defs put all three in the Caribbean, while some included Cuba in "LA"...almost none included Haiti and the Dominican Republic
You might say: That's TOO BIG--
1. Many issues will overlap between countries. Instead of Bolivia drugs cases and Colombia drugs cases, there would be war on drugs cases that involved both (not the best example, but you get the point)
2. The number of countries in LA far exceeds those in this year's resolution. However, that does not mean every country will be as deep as Iran debates. There are more countries, but the US policy involvement is not a deep (which should help with concerns over predictable lit). Only a few countries will encompass a large amount of issues...Brazil, Mexico, and maybe Colombia...So two will be deep like Iran (maybe), the rest more like Lebanon & PLA affs (although a bit more diverse)
A few reasons to broaden discussion to include "Latin America":
1. The State Dept. covers LA under the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. When Sec. Rice travels to South America, she visits "central america" "mexico", and the like. Many USFG programs and strategies are directed to the whole of the hemisphere (south of the US). This is also true in the context of trade and "free trade for the Americas"
2. "South" is racist/ethnocentric---warning you now, these cards exist...they mirror the logic of the HS topic "sub"Saharan Africa..."Central" defines a periphery by which to exclude...I have not see a K of "Latin" America, but it likely exists...the other two definitely exist...does anyone want to hear these Ks? Not me.
Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a policy to substantially increase political stability in Latin America.
Looking forward to the new "Evil Empire" Red Spread debates with China, "IN" means "throughout", Brazilian prolif, etc...hey, are the Contras still fighting?
Andrew Michael-Don Casey <acasey3 at ucok.edu> wrote:2.) I disagree with the idea that South America won???t have big diverse
impacts. There are tons of environment, trade, oil, terror, and
democratization debates to be had. I also think this has a bigger
diversity of impact areas than an intelligence topic would.
Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman