[eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate?

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Thu Apr 9 07:27:15 CDT 2009


Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you.  Two quick points before going to teach,

1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same.  hahaha.  really?

2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world.

This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not.

In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn.   His position boils down to:  "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)."  NONSENSE.

the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform.

kevin

________________________________________
From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM
To: Kuswa, Kevin
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate?

Most important question of mine:

What is the difference between these topics:

"The USFG should..."
&
"We think the USFG should..."

Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the
USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different
conclusions?

I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem,
but what about when it is the primary problem?

Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument
that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG."

My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue
like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others
with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would
advocate that the US change its Iraq policy.

If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq
policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for
everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can.

--JP

ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated
intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for
the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests
the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American
style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming
the French for failed intervention when we could have done something
else entirely than rely on more military intervention.


pps --  What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the
USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the
advantages? So far, you've read some links...

WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating.  This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate.  Certainty does not always generate the best debate.  Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy
, and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season.




Kuswa, Kevin wrote:
> answers below.  jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims....
>
> ________________________________________
> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM
> To: Kuswa, Kevin
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate?
>
> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice.
>
> EXACTLY.
>
> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States."
>
> WHAT?  That is quite a jump.  Is this a proposed resolution?  There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions.
>
> I said  "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to
> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war
> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one
> we bear responsibility for.
>
> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining.  Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion?  Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive).
>
> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad
> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but
> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in
> history.
>
> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people."  Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella.
>
> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the
> United States should do.
>
> OF COURSE--no shit, actually.  Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year.  Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy.  Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct.  What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade.
>
> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people
> don't adequately voice their opinions.
>
> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence?  I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis.  The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice.  Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign.  Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops."
>
> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader.  See what the expression of opinion can yield?
>
> It is true that debaters are not the USFG.
>
> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg.  Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"?
>
> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes
> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form
> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we
> argue about them?
>
> WE should, we do, and we will.  Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year?  Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters?  In other words, what about switch-side debate?  Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG?
>
> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq?
> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example
> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.)
>
> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary.  The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter.  The second answer is a turn:  "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement."  Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war).  There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc.
>
> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could
> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some
> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are
> those topics compared to what we are missing?)
>
> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating.  This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate.  Certainty does not always generate the best debate.  Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis
> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season.
>
> kevin
>
> --JP
>
> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of
> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of
> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone
> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that
> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide.
>
> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America.  This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world.  Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action.  Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome."  jeeesh.
>
> ARLEE--thanks for the card.
>
> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention.
>
> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide"
>
> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African".
>
> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994.
>
> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces.
>
> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead.
>
> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower.
>
> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians.
>
> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry.
>
> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994.
>
> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops.
>
> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing.
>
> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994.
> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers.
>
>
> Kuswa, Kevin wrote:
>
>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP.
>>
>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG.  You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you?
>>
>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate.  Besides, why not give it a shot for one year?
>>
>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd....
>>
>> kevin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM
>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net
>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate?
>>
>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in
>> Iraq.
>>
>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue?
>>
>> --JP
>>
>>
>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror
>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I
>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community
>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding
>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of
>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Quoting JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems?
>>>>
>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have
>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq &
>>>> deregulation of financial institutions.
>>>>
>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that
>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq
>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem.
>>>>
>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure?
>>>>
>>>> --JP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about
>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> can
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> do that any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and
>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for
>>>>> alternative resolutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy
>>>>> debate" for the
>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S.
>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement
>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and
>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> debate."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address
>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> evidence and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> battle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> finals at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> representative of what we do.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions
>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades),
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> been in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> really
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> rounds of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> use
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> some
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> middle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> America. A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> (at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> almost
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> love
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> becomes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> policy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> agent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> etc.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> unless
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> China and India get on board)
>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the
>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value)
>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?)
>>>>> 5) Postmodernism;
>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world.
>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?)
>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions;
>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> framing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our
>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> (or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> analysis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> world in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues
>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG
>>>>> policymaking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> space to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> can
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> blah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> blah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> substanitally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> curtailed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce
>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> should be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced,
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> eDebate mailing list
>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list