Re: treaties

[Sean Harris <harrissr@whitman.edu>]

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Whitney M. Gardner wrote:

> I have to agree here.  The treaties paper is the best one that I have
> read this year.  I too am coming from a small program and the idea of
> being able to anticipate the case areas is very appealing.  I think this
> will level the playing groud for the smaller schools.  

I don't understand why this topic area would help small schools.  There
are 48 topical cases (plus any new treaties we might want to ratify, which
could, if the res is worded right, be infinite).  Even if there are 48
cases, they cover so many different areas that you *need* a case debate in
order to win.  I'm not against case debates (in fact, quite the contrary)
but I think the negative needs to have many options at their disposal.
A multiplicity of options helps small schools.  So does predictable
ground.  Neither is available on this topic.

Sean Harris
Whitman College

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: treaties
• From: John Sullivan <sulliv75@pilot.msu.edu>

References:

• Re: treaties
• From: "Whitney M. Gardner" <whit@seattleu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Someone from Northwestern
• Next by Date: Response to Meany
• Prev by thread: Re: treaties
• Next by thread: Re: treaties
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page