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

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Fri Apr 10 10:05:13 CDT 2009


We are reaching that super-saturation point with JP's comprehension...maybe one or two more....
________________________________________
From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:10 AM

You aren't making sense.

YOUR SENSE-MAKING is blinding you to the possibilities of debate.

 From the outset, all I have said is this:

1. The USFG is a good agent to debate about because it causes big
problems we should discuss.

WE AGREE (except on the implication that other agents do not cause big problems).  Every few years we should have a usfg topic.  We can also debate the USFG on the neg.  We can also debate about the USFG even if it is not the agent.

2. Americans should not distance themselves from the United States,
because doing so disaggregates responsibility for US policy.

YOU ARE STUCK ON THE DESCRIPTOR "AMERICAN."  This continual attempt to define the debate community as American is far more exceptionalist/imperial than debating about something other than the usfg every so often.  THE PRIMARY DISTANCING is not your concern, but it still happens befopre any of the disaggregation you fear on the macro-level.  What is this "primary distancing"?  It is the idea that the first step of requiring USFG action to be topical is a step eliminating the agency offered by the debaters themselves.  ALSO, your argument is more about civic positioning in the world than about debate topics.  Does this mean the negative is always anti-American?

3. Some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good
are those topics compared to what we are doing now?

HOW ARROGANT DO YOU HAVE TO BE to assume that YOU should know exactly what will happen before you can agree to try it.  There are other types of topics that are good, would be good, and could even be better than what we have now.  Also, you have not justified your approach year after year after year (only in a one-time duel).  Don't you trust the debaters to come up with interesting and compelling argumetns on both sides ven if the agent is not the USFG?

I still can't discern your answers to any of the 3 arguments I made.

GLASSES come in many forms and sizes.

I made my arguments as someone to be persuaded. So far, you've responded
with arguments without reason.

THIS IS A SENTENCE THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE IMPERIAL SCRIBE, "your papers are not in order."  Get over your own interpretion for once or maybe twice.

You have said the following with no good warrant (Maybe you can link
these statements to the arguments I made. You haven't yet.):

        "JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945"

YES, the thought-process of using a Hiroshima War Memorial as an analogy for US attempts to speak for other countries is dangerous.  There is NO LINK to topic writing in your argument, but there is a link to "recognizing complicity" as a means to appease individual guilt.  When you add up that guilt-sanitation, you make yourself and others more willing to accept the next Hiroshima (Iraq war #1 and the yellow-ribbon campaign...that's the example you will not touch anymore after you brought it up).  You also justify a race over the nation-state at the top--if we can just drop the bomb, we can be the state that tells other country's not to drop their bombs.  You preclude thinking about not dropping the bomb AND not invading a series of islands in the Pacific.

        "YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL"

YES, in the context of the Rwanda example that YOU brought up, you were assuming that a lack of USFG action (bystander mentality) was primarily responsible for the killings and genocidal action in the region.  This is not exactly the case--in fact it was the same sort of colonial control and imperial logic from Europe that created the divisions between the people in the first place and then instituted mechanisms for mass killing.  You do not know this history--you simply believe the narrative of US inaction being the cause because you have already been conditioned to think that the US always has the solution (probably because you have been in debate for so long).  What would you have the US do?  You phrase is "stop the killing."  Do you know how the US tried to "stop the killing" in Vietnam?  The military razed villages so there were no more people to kill.  In Rwanda, the nation-state borders and attempts to coerce the people into identifying with Rwanda over other ethnic attachments was one of the reasons the violence was so extreme.  Your blanket homogenizing of the people in the region into "Rwandans" and your colonial assumption that outside trooops are the best way to solve the problem are the two kinds of thinking that provoked the nightmare in the first place.


Your response to one of my most important questions was not helpful at all:

Question: I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves.

Look, JP, whenever you say "X should" and X is something other than you, you are entering into a hypothetical.  It's not that hard to grasp.

You will help yourself understand if you fill in your question a little better.....saying "the usfg should institute a draft" is a thought-experiment that thinks about an external agent acting that is A) not oneself, and B) not capable of being manipulated (or fiated) no matter what the speaker says (assuming the speaker is a debater in a debate round).

Look at it from the other side.  If you and I are hanging out--maybe at Cattle Annie's like we have in the past--and you say, "I should go across the street for a pack of smokes," I would not think to myself, "ok, jp, but you have no control over the 'I'," unless I was making some metaphysical point about nicotine.  In other words, I would assume that you have control over what you are contemplating that you should do.  If you turned to me and said, "I should ride the mechanical bull,"  I might think to myself that you would never really get on the bull but i would also know it was possible (i was at cattle annie's the year before as well).  Finally, if you were to turn to me and say, "I should save all the whales off the coast of the Northwest US,"  I would know you had entered a hypothetical and I would probably think, "of course JP cannot do that, he must be talking about the government."   This is the "stop thinking about a giraffe" argument...the context alwasy changes depending on how you position yourself and who the audience is.

Let me ask you a question as a follow-up.  Who are you addressing the statement, "The USFG should..." to?  What power does the audience you are addressing reasonably possess?


The most important question I asked was never answered at all:

Question: 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...

THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD ANSWER, especially when combined with the switch-side argument allowing you to maintain usfg discussion on the negative.  I would also add that we freeze our ability to plot out change in other contexts and we unnecessarily associate governing with macro-reform.

The biggest issue, though, is that year after year we encourage debaters to DE-VALUE what they are actually doing (at the actual time of the debate) in FAVOR of reifying federal government action--the scholarship-fetish DA.  The effect of this is to turn debate into a "training day" model that exclusively looks toward certain types of "model-subjectivities" as the universal aim of all debaters and all debate programs.  Some models work better for some programs--it is not a surprise to see the same bad arguments being made with increasing ferocity as the writing on the wall becomes more and more visible.  This is not much more difficult than the statism position, yet there are still questions about what agency does when it is folded into "the usfg should."

ANOTHER GOOD Answer: 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.


I've still got a list of effects of abandoning the USFG, but no impact.

Turn the page over--there are quite a few impacts--most of them of your choosing.

Oh, and add the one that has been implied all the way through:  EDUCATION.

kevin

--JP



Kuswa, Kevin wrote:
> Ok, at some point it's going to be better to pull back than to repeat.
>
> not quite there yet, but close.
>
> for the general outline of a non-usfg approach as well as a number of other ways to contemplate topic wordings with some variety, there is a detailed post here: http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/381
>
> more specifics below...but first,
>
> Hey, JP, What are you planning on doing tomorrow?  Better, yet, JP, what should you do tomorrow?
>
> Potential answers:
>
> A) stopping the war in afghanistan
> B) funding stem cell research
> C) researching some cards about poverty
> D) typing stuff on edebate
> E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee
>
> Next question: "What should the usfg do tomorrow?"
>
> Same potential answers:
>
> A) stopping the war in afghanistan
> B) funding stem cell research
> C) researching some cards about poverty
> D) typing stuff on edebate
> E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee
>
> Obviously the best debates would be ones involving these agents and answers:
>
> Resolved:  JP Lacy should stop the war in Afghanistan.
>
> Resolved:  The USFG should cut some cards on the poverty topic.
>
> more specifics below....
>
> ________________________________________
> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:19 PM
>
> 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?
>
> YOU ARE NOT AGENT-LESS.  This is an INCREDIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE FETISHIZATION AND CULT OF THE USFG AGENT.  You really believe that NOT using the USFG dooms us to "agent-less" debates?  We have had non-usfg topics before with great success.  We can try some diversity once in a while given that debate is an academic competition with some level of creativity required.  It is great to debate external institutions every so often---but there are lots of external institutions to select from other than the USFG and there are also ways to incorporate internal agents on the affirmative as well.
>
> IF ONLY to convince you and others that "agency" is possible in debate rounds on the affirmative outside the usfg, we should give it a shot.
>
> 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..."
>
> The double-turn does not rely on finding the statements above persuasive.  You argue that "speaking for others" is one way american exceptionalism becomes violent and then you argue that we should speak for the USFG.  On top of that you argue that debaters are somehow all Americans and that debaters have the responsibility to debate as if they were Americans--except somehow externalized as a giant "We" in the sky.
>
> Besides, the statements you use above are tricks.  The first one is not accurate because it does not have the "resolved" in front of it.  Sure, any of us can (and should) talk about what the usfg should do.  That is important.  Assuming that a debater saying "this is what the usfg should do" is equivalent to a factual statement advoacting that the USFG take a particular action is not a safe assumption.  You have conveniently included the debater's agency, but only as a vehicle to speak the abstract external agent into being.
>
> The USFG is no different from other federal governments in terms of the external nature of its agency in the context of a debate round.  There are, of course, many other differences between all of the agents mentioned.  I do not think, though, that you should presume such an American-centric view of agency in the University, let alone debate.  If we cannot debate outside the civic institution that you believe "we" best fall under, we are never going to contribute to any larger sense of democracy or critical thinking (instead we become parrots).  Can we not entertain the possibility that some debaters (perhaps all debaters at given times) are not citizens of the US, do not consider themselves Americans, believe that such perspectives can be debated on the negative if necessary, or have adherence to a radically universal or radically localized identity, are against gesturing to the USFG within a certain topic area, etc.?  Are these all possibilities you are willing to exclude year after year after year on the affirmative?
>
> 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.
>
> MAYBE you need to simplify it?  "As-if" vs. "not as if."  What counterplans are typically available when you say R: the USFG should?   States, maybe Executive Order, maybe a different country or consulting a different country?  All of these are macro-institutions that no single speaker can claim to fully "be"--there is always a hypothetical, an imaginary, an "as-if."  If the resolution is "R: debaters should...," the typical counterplans would be very different and WOULD NOT ALL HAVE THE "AS-IF" ELEMENT.
>
> 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."
>
> THIS EXAMPLE IS A BAD SET-UP that you yourself have linked to genocide.  It is hard to believe that this is how you are visualizing the choices.  Equating the debate community with "A group of mostly American students" has its own serious problems including the attempt to speak with one voice, but we'll bracket that for a rainy day.  More important for our current discussion is the part where you write "who say...."  Who are these students talking to?  Each other?  Judges?  Russian officials?  News reporters?  Russian students?  A combination?  Come on, JP, you know this kind of audience analysis is necessary when talking about advocacy, agency, and debate.  Do not forget to ask, "To what audience?"  The answer to that question changes all of the assumptions you are making.  if these students are talking to Putin it is very different than talking to a debate judge.  Ideally, students would be able to say both of those statements.  You ahe excluded the very possibility of the second statement because you are so convinced by the false righteousness of the first one.
>
> SECONDLY, YOU HAVE ADDED A "We think" to further confuse the example.  The phrase "Students who say we think the USFG should" is different from "students who say the USFG should."  You have excluded the "we think" from your first example and added it to the second example.  This makes a difference because the preface "we think" is an attempt to convey an idea or a thought-experiment.  Without the "we think," the command over either the USFG or the Russian government would be equally declarative (both would be proclamations or attempts to hail outside influences).  When you are asked for a report on the debate program or how to improve the research efforts on the debate team, do you respond with what you think the school should do?
>
> THIRDLY, why is "Russia" the opposite of the USFG?---wouldn't you be talking about "America" and "Russia" OR the USFG and the Government of Russia?  The equation of a national identity category with a government is very dangerous (see the imperialism in the Rwanda example).  Certainly there are problems with the Russian government as the agent that would parallel problems with the USFG (externalizing agency, centering federal governmental structure, etc.), but at least the Russian government as an agent would offer some variety, some educational creativity, some attempt to show that debate is not always based on the actions of the usfg projected on top of an inert world.  The argument that "speaking as" Russia in a DEBATE ROUND would mimic American exceptionalism and should therefore force the debaters to debate as if they were the USFG is the most backasswards shitbull ever.  Ask anyone from Russia if they would be more intrigued by questions of agency concerning the Russian government or about more ways the US could impose itself on Russia AS A DEBATE TOPIC, and your whole assumption would probably be flipped.
>
> 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."
>
> Again, who are you saying this to?  Who is the we?  AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU GENOCIDAL ARCHITECT, who the F are "Rwandans"????   Your potential topic replicates that national homogenization that forced the ethnic violence to manifest in the first place.  STOP YOURSELF, JP.  Each post further exposes your growing micro-fascism...do not let it fully consume you--there is still hope.
>
> no shit we should talk about what the usfg should do, but not to the exclusion of everything else on the aff, and not because we have to avoid some sort of debater-identity anxiety.  You are on the sofa telling the therapist that you keep seeing giant elephants appear in the room but you cannot seem to touch the elephant or speak to the elephant or even ask the elephant to leave. The therapist says, "stop thinking about the elephant" and you say, "the elephant is telling me that I am not thinking about the elephant."   In your world, we stop there because it is somehow polite or courteous to continue listening to something that you have conjured up in the first place.   Don't ask the elephant how to stop thinking about it.  Start or stop thinking about a giraffe if you have to.  The Russian government is not the giraffe, the Russian government is not the giraffe, etc.  At some point you might even think outside the fictional world of giant anthropomorphic agents all together.
>
> 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?
>
> THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THE IRAQ EXAMPLE (which you have conveniently dropped--including all the arguments about patriotism).  Your position is the staging of the Saddam statue being taken down in the green zone.  Own your nationality, JP--tell us what you are doing to really own your American-ness.  We are waiting in antipication....we want to imporve our nationalities as well.
>
> This is not cosmopolitanism and you should stop treating it as such.  DEBATE IS NOT ONE NATIONALITY AND DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT "AMERICA" MEANS AT A WAR MEMORIAL YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.  JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945 because the USFG thought some other nation-state might get the bomb first and that killing civilians would be a necessary move to prevent a more bloody conflict in the Pacific.  The Hiroshima memorial is about guilt-aversion for the collective conscience, not an act of national redemption.  In fact, a BETTER way to understand "our" nationality would be to diversity the ways we conceive of agency when we debate.  That turns all of your arguments over the long term because we debate different topics every year--if the USFG is too awesome to let go, we can return to the hive for future resolutions.   We do not have to give up on ever debating the USFG just because we have one year that is a little different.  It is a alot easier for debaters to shed their own location (their own subjectifvity) and pretend to be the USFG than it is for most Americans to shed their national baggage.  How many Americans do you think regularly think outside of their national identities to imagine international institutions taking particular actions?  When talking about what pedagogical approach would be better for debaters, it seems far more important to ask debaters to defend their own location, their own process of identification, their own standpoint than to pretend that they are the USFG every time.
>
> Would you march up to the "victims" you somehow "meet at the memorial" and say, "don't worry, the USFG should substantially apologize to one or more of the living members of the geographic area in Japan decimated by one or more weapons of mass destruction."?
>
> OR, do you say, "we have been debating about foreign policy and nuclear weapons and i am sorry about your losses, losses that I may have had a role in as a US citizen"?
>
> maybe you don't say anything---regardless, your little memorial afterthought scenario is not applicable to a debate topic wording or our questions about agency.    OWN YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN MEANINGFULLY OWN YOUR OWN NATIONALITY AS WELL AS OTHER MODES OF IDENTIFICATION.   Don't ask what the impact is--you have now brought up Iraq, Rwanda, and Hiroshima in ways that turn your own argument.
>
>
> kevin
>
> --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 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