Re: generic treaties bad and empirically denied answers.

[RACE --- <race@midusa.net>]

Kelly Steele wrote:
> 
> come on--
> 
> i dont think that the negative arguments that treaties are bad and that by
> adding one more, there will be a certain impact is the nature of an
> effective "treaties bad" argument in the first place
> 
> how would that have ever been a unique argument in the first place?
> i mean, i guess we've never entered into a treaty before, but we've sure
> talked about them enough in the last century that the "perception of
> treaties" is already there
> ok, sorry
> 
> but seriously, whos to say that the CWC will be effective ?
> it may prove the arguments about why treaties and international agreements
> fail
> 
> more to the point, the recent debate over the CWC just proves that there
> exists a substantial (without material qualification) amount of ground for
> negatives on specific treaty issues
> example, many senators supported or pledged to support a bill offered by
> senator kyl (r-az) to unilaterally impose sanctions and take other
> measures to combate the spread of chemical weapons regardless of the
> outcome of the senate vote
> while the bill was essentially offered to provide political cover to those
> senators who wanted to vote against the treaty but not appear to be
> "pro-chemical weapons" (or against efforts to combat them), the language
> that was used in support of this bill would have made some pretty strong
> debate evidence (that being the tip of the iceberg on those types of
> "unilateral action solves better" arguments)
> 
> while a disad that treated treaties as an entity with some type of
> brinkish story seems like it would be silly, the above example illustrates
> adequate counterplan/solvency turn ground
> the evidence exists where these treaties are debated in the literature
> 
> besides, lets not kid ourselves, negatives have gotten around much tougher
> uniqueness arguments
> 
> kelly steele
> 
> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, RACE --- wrote:
> 
> > if the negative reads generic treaties "bad" arguments.
> >
> > and the affirmative says
> >
> > EMPIRICALLY DENIED.  the recent ratification of CWC should have caused.
> >
> > how does the negative reply????
> >
> > either they get no link or only a very marginal linear link.
> >
> > just a thought about negative ground prompted by today's headlines.
> >
> > dbr
> >

i concede that all the generic treaties bad ground that OTHERS not me 
defended were not serious arguments.  i'm glad that other are opening 
their eyes to this....

dbr

---

• Prev by Date: AT: Debate puzzle
• Next by Date: RE:Affirmative action and CR
• Prev by thread: Re: generic treaties bad and empirically denied answers.
• Next by thread: a brief update on Kerouac saga
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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