[eDebate] problem solved: khalilzad author indict/independent voter
Sun Jul 5 20:21:44 CDT 2009
We live in a vastly different geopolitical context; Khalilzhad is ridiculously
outdated: vote to institute new community standard on evidence quality.
Johnson '09. (Paul Elliott. Ph.D. candidate at the University of Iowa. July
5th. eDebate archives: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079110.html.)
Does anyone realize.... that the primary piece of impact evidence we read
for the most popular advantage is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD?
That Khalilzhad card is really, really old. It is older than some people you are
instructing at camp this summer.
Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes have happened.
The US has "exercised leadership" in the Middle East. Many security analysts
now believe thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an outmoded sentiment
that needs updating for an increasingly globalized and fragmented world.
In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse of Communism would
take in Russia. We were only fifteen years out from the LAST uprising in Iran.
We had just fought a very successful war in the Middle East, instead of a couple
iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most important of all international
It[']s easy to find evidence that the United States needs to maintain a position
of leadership in the world at large. Moreover, this evidence is plentiful even from
dates AFTER 1994. As a community we pride ourself [sic] on rigorously testing
arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, and refining them as
we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a different piece of evidence in the
1AC--one that, you know, assumes the world we live in, and not one that we
need to fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see?
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman