traditional t

[Debateone@aol.com]

Traditionally, topicality disputes revolve around which definition to accept
in the round, most precise, best, reasonable, etc.  Consider the following
argument.

Traditional notions of settling topicality disputes lead to confusion,
especially when the notion of a substantial change in foreign policy is
involved (this is a truncated version of the actual explanation).  As a
result, we offer better ways of determining when a change in foreign policy
is actually substantial.  

Subpoint A.  Standards.  

1.  A substantial change in foreign policy would be an agenda item for
Clinton and Zedillo because they lead the way on foreign policy; to wit:
 they would be talking about it, and it would be a significant item on their
respective agendas.

B.  Violations.

1.  They don't talk about it, therefore it is not a critical
    foreign policy item and any substantial change in
    would glean the attention of the primary policy 
    makers.

Same impacts, t is a voter.  How does this sound?  How would people answer?

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: traditional t
• From: Meredith Garmon <sgarmon@dubois.fisk.edu>
• Re: traditional t
• From: ross12@MARSHALL.EDU

---

• Prev by Date: New on Debate Central 12-95
• Next by Date: Re: MPJ and Accountability
• Prev by thread: New on Debate Central 12-95
• Next by thread: Re: traditional t
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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