[eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff)

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu Apr 9 19:27:05 CDT 2009


Sometimes though you can convince someone  that they are just the bad part
of the usfg with a little masking and deception thown in to explain the good
away, and then they stand at the memorial and scream at the other americans
about their collective complicity, as if each person did not have a unique
historical interaction that brought them to the memorial.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:19 PM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

> 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should"
> encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that
> leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics?
>
> 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you
> would have to believe:
>
>        The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external
> institution.
>
>        & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as
> "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..."
>
>
> 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should" somehow
> declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves.
> Maybe I need a better explanation.
>
> 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different
> from "another country should."
>
> Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is
> more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism?
>
> A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing
> missile defense, because it scares Russia."
>
> or
>
> A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop
> worrying about US missile defense."
>
>
> The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made
> decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop
> fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something."
>
> Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed
> their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some
> cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I
> think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial
> saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the
> USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to
> someone whose family suffered in that attack?
>
> --JP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kuswa, Kevin wrote:
> > 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 l
>  is
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/9da0a30c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list