[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
critiques
Pat Gehrke from Cal State Chico writes:
<If the resolution were: "Re: That nuclear buildup benefits the planet earth
<because the planet is flat." wouldn't proof that the planet is round make the
<resolution unjustifiable?"
Ah, but the reso doesn't say that. It says, "Re: That nuclear buildup benefits
the planet eath." Period, end of story. It's up to us to show that this is
true by supplying the "because" part of the argument in the debate.
That's why I have a lot of problems with critiques. If the reso is worded as I
suggested, then if a debater comes up and says, "Examining the effects of nukes
on the planet earth is ethnocentric (or world-centric, or whatever) and that's
bad because it makes insensitive to the inhabitants of other planets and that
will cause them to come and kill us. Therefore, you cannot vote affirmative
because upholding the resolution can never lead to anything positive."
Now, as a judge, I'm likely to believe the aff if they argue that they didn't
write the resolution and that's not what we are here to determine whether it is
inherently ethnocentric, only whether it is true or false. If the neg showed
that nuclear buildup will lead inhabitants of other planets to come and attack
us, I would find that to be more logical, and hence more believable.
Laura Ellingson
The Real World
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page