[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Treaties and Harris
Sean makes multiple arguments against the treaty topic paper:
1. No predictable negative ground - Wrong, 48 cases you know ahead of time.
Wrong, International law is bad. Wrong, specific political action disads.
Wrong, Foreign policy making power disadvantages (international treaties
tie our hands in foreign policy crisis - the cards are all over the place
- see all the debate on UN peacekeeping etc.). Wrong, actor arguments
indicting multilateral action through status quo mechanisms such as the UN
in lieu of better more revolutionary or innovative alternatives. Wrong,
Militia disads actually apply on this topic. Wrong, treaty modification
or exception counterplans that are actually based in the copious literature.
Wrong, volumes of specific evidence on almost every treaty. Also, this
argument fails to compare the predictability to our normal harm area topics
which frequently fail to specify specific literature based actions or actors
creating moronic and problamatic ground division and predictability
problems. A very weak argument.
2. The corralary - No T - Well, T was designed to check affirmative abuse of
the topic....If there is no abuse....No T.....In fact, no need for T and
good riddance to it.....If the affirmatives do attempt to warp the topic
intent there will actually be very specific and excellent field specific and
contextually explained definitions that will make the T debates excellent
instead of meaningless and annoying....
3. Space Luxemburg - So what...Name a topic that you cannot accomplish this
feat on......In addition, a whole lot of debates on relations will be
created by the topic and the link turn debates will make the impacts
somewhat irrelevent....Oh no....specific topic literature that actually
refers to the links of the disadvantages....That would be horrible....
4. Small schools - Your argument is that large topics allow small schools
to run an affirmative that is off the beaten path and allows them some
equalization of ground on the affirmative against well researched
big school negatives.....Well....Wrong, it absolutely ensures no ability
of the small school to win the other four debates because the topic is
so large and unspecific that they cannot keep up. Wrong, there are still
forty-eight possibilities which allow for something to be off the beaten
path. Wrong, there is more literature that is available to all helping
affirmatives begin early and defend well and often no matter where they
come from. Wrong, novices and younger debaters can hardly comprehend the
number of options or what the topic means now....At least with this topic
they immediately understand what ground is available to both sides and the
topic allows the predictable generic ground to always be useful against
any of the cases....In other words, I disagree....
Also, what the heck is the alternative? I have no problem with the other
subject areas but that is hardly the question.....The question is, can
the other areas be as well divided and predictable as the treaties area?
If not, I do not care how interesting they are. Failure to specify and
failure to limit is crushing participation in our activity.....Vote for
the first limited topic in years......Help me in my quest to maintain a
useable case list....Vote for treaties!!!!! Josh
Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page