[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CEDA-L Digest 957 topic comments -Reply
(although i can be yuri-centric at times). am i wrong or is there a reason
to include value topics other than A) you think it would enlighten us or
B) "some" people want it? -yuri
---Well Yuri, I'm relatively certain that there are many people in our debate
community who feel that those two reasons are quite sufficient!
I prefer policy topics but am not opposed to the inclusion of
well-researched, well-thought-out, and well-worded value topics which
allow for a reasonable number of affirmative cases, provide debatable
negative ground and conform to the topic area (in this case
environment/regulation)
My argument with the one true value topic which came out of the topic
committee meeting is that it would not be appropriate for a full year of
debating; if the other two topics were intended to be value (Deep
Ecology and non-human species), then the committee needed to do a
better job of wording them. Also, several people have pointed out that 1)
no topic papers have emerged on three of the topics, and 2) the topic
area is regulation of the environment and no attempt has yet been made
to justify these topics from that standpoint. Another area which has not
been addressed is the scope of the three quasi-value topics. Most
people view these topics as too narrow, while I, on the other hand, view
them as topics with few limits; can you imagine Michigan State running
the pond case and applying the concept of Deep Ecology to it? Or
justifying it from a biocentric ethics point of view or specifying the one
tiny little specie which is placed at risk in that one pond? Multiple this
example by thousands. What are the limits placed on those topics?
Glen Strickland
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page