[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Topic actors and whatnot

In a message dated 97-04-10 23:37:38 EDT, lheller@richmond.edu (Lisa K.
Heller) writes:

> To discuss the US IN EVERY DEBATE ROUND is
>ethnocentric. The rest of the world doesn't live this way. And with the
>actor constantly being the US, we exclude ourselves from a broader context,
>which is why I say it's ethnocentric. (And boring.)

This is so irrelevant, really, but I can't let this slide.  This argument
makes zero sense.  Does this mean that the US Congress, for instance, should
consider Japanese policies in an attempt not to be ethnocentric?  And what do
you mean the rest of the world doesn't live this way?  Are you saying that
other nations prioritize concerns of the United States, or some different
nation?  

The "boring" part I disagree with, but that's just a matter of opinion, so
whatever.


>Right - which is why choosing another country would increase research
>skills, stop the Lexis mantra, and force people to work at getting good
>evidence. All of which means better debate.


Wrong.  Those without big libraries devoted to foreign policy would be forced
to rely on Lexis because they wouldn't have access to the right journals.
 You are perhaps correct that some would rely less on Lexis, but if you don't
have the Journal of Japanese Foreign Policy or even the Far Eastern Economic
Review (hardly a staple of many libraries) you're basically taking it in the
pants on the whole research deal.


>The fact that the libraries have little on the subject just means more
>creative researching on our part.

"Creative"?  I'm with you in principle, in that expanding research horizons
is good.  But what exactly do you mean here?  Do you honestly think that
debaters aren't now exploring as many options as possible?  Not all debaters,
of course, but changing the actor won't make a lazy researcher energetic, and
that's a fact.


>I hardly think the literature is as obscure as you make it seem. It would
>still be the same impact evidence, and the same internal link evidence, and
>all you'd have to do is find the specific actor ev.

Uh....what?  I thought all that stuff was "boring".  And, anyway "all you
have to do" is a bit mild, since that little "all you have to do" would be
the WHOLE TOPIC.


>Any current foreign
>policy journal will have SOME mention of why x country should do this, or
>why y country should do that. Plus, with the internet out there, there are
>many more opportunities for research.


Casual mention does not an affirmative make, and the internet is just not the
savior here.  If Xinhua isn't credible, I hardly think "Jon Bon Jovi's Web
Page on Chinese Foreign Policy" at "www.slipperywhenwet.deng.com" is the
piece de resistance of qualified sources.


>Frankly, I think there's lots of good ev out there to use, we just haven't
>LOOKED because we haven't had a chance because the topic always has the "US"
>doing stuff.
 

This is simply false.  Actor counterplans are researched all the time.

>>One more thing--what's more ethnocentric:  U.S. citizens advocating changes
>>in U.S. policy, or U.S. citizens advocating changes in Japanese policies?  
>
>You got a good point there. :) But what you describe above is not really
>ethnocentric to me: that's hegemonic. I think NOTICING that other countries
>EXIST as their OWN actors in a debate round is less ethnocentric than
>supposing that all important debate action should revolve around the US.


Ah--it's only HEGEMONIC, not ETHNOCENTRIC!  For a second there, I thought we
were screwed!
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page