[eDebate] Latin America is still pretty much Mexico topic

J T jtedebate
Mon Apr 7 11:29:35 CDT 2008

This is a substantial clarification from your previous comment that a Latin America topic is "boring"...i  What about a Latin America topic is "boring" to you?  Sure, I see the solvency advocate line of reasoning, but not how it affects whether a topic is interesting or boring...
 I think it just makes sense to think about the types of things the topic would discuss (HARMS) before the mechanisms to address those harm...its not like it is already June and all of this has been discussed...Harm areas are certainly important to discuss, but I agree should not be the fundamental basis of choosing a topic...

Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com> wrote: Mexico was en vogue in the 90's. It was a contemporary topic due to the significance of their economic situation (they ignited a nearly global economic downturn and necessitated a massive U.S. assistance project) and their relationship with the US (NAFTA, Prop 187 and other current immigration issues, revolution in the South from the Zapatistas, serious social and humanitarian issues associated with economic disparities, etc). The problem wasnt harm areas. The problem was available policy-oriented literature on solutions that were debatable. The topic demanded size to generate viable solutions, but size undermined negative ground, especially cogency and directionality. These "issues" that everyone is talking about re: LA are all interesting HARM AREAS, but appear to lack a standard, cogent basis for neg ground. We, as a community, ought to be considering not interesting harms when selecting a topic, but interesting and
 two-sided solutions to viable harms. Harm diversity is a reason to oppose the topic, not to support it. Here's why: as harms diversify, solutions diversify and the difficulty in generating appropriate negative ground increases exponentially. While I do not believe that topics should be neg biased, I do believe that they should consider the neg. And, quite frankly, the biggest difficulty with AFFs is ALSO solvency problems, not harms. So, focus on mechanisms, make those mechanisms well-defined, and generate a central, cogent negative ground. The swell of support for this topic largely ignores what makes a good topic.  

Russia 08-09.

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com


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...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080407/65a9dc61/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list