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

Re: traditional t


On Sun, 3 Dec 1995 Debateone@aol.com wrote:

> 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?
> 
I think this is a cool T position.  I don't think that it would be that
much more difficult than a "normal" T position to answer, except that a
few front-lines probably won't be applicable.  I think in a way, however,
it is abusive because it forces some cases to have weaker inherency in order
to be topical.  For example, an open borders case-which is pretty mainstream-
can't have a card saying "US gov't isn't even discussing open borders"-
if it does-it feeds the violation.  Plus, I think an argument that suggests
that if "Clinton and Ernesto are talking about it now, then it isn't a 
substantial change b/c it is already in the SQ discourse" would probably be
pretty persuasive.

I think the position assumes that "Substantial" modifies FP and NOT 
change, i.e a substantial FP is one that's talked about. I guess you
could argue that that is grammatically correct-but it isn't.
The rez says "...substantially change FP...", not "...change substantial
FP".

Is the violation a "hidden" Trade-off Link or am I reading too much?

Mike Ross
Marshall U
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page