[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
re:topic comments 958
"there are several reasons to reject the topic proposal: "that we should
embrace the principles of deep ecology" first, the topic terms are
entirely imprecise. what exactly, are the principles of deep ecology?
professor snider directs to a couple of books in the literature, yet fails
to identify what authors in the field identify as these "principles." the
problem is identifiable in the following description of the adherents of
I tried to read your cards carefully and I do not think they proved your
point. It is a good thing we didn't put "narrative" in the topic, I guess,
but we didn't. How is that different than disagreeing about whether CO2 is a
pollutant or not? There is no such thing as a concept with "one meaning."
Everything is open to interpretation. MEANING IS FOUND IN PEOPLE, NOT IN
WORDS. The 8 principles of deep ecology I will be posting very soon are about
as clear as we ever get in this activity. ALSO, it is an evolving concept,
why isn't that a good reason to debate it? Must we always debate things about
which the meaning is set? Determining a "better" approach to deep ecology
might be a useful output of the process.
my perception of the utility of topic phrasology is grounded more in
literature definitional constructs than rhetorical flourishes that mention
topic words. i am familiar with sessions attempt to provide the
"principles" of the deep ecology movement, but i would characterize these as
rhetoric rather than defintion. i am hesitant to "embrace" topic wordings
that exist in literature somewhere without some definitional construct.
this is not an appeal to an absolutist writen in stone meaning of terms, for
we probably all agree that any word or phrase has multiple meanings
dependent upon context, but there should exist some definitional construct
for the terms used in topics. the distinction between the approaches i think
will be more apparent after the "principles" paper is posted.
"of course, a year of "not my deep eco" is fairly easy to envision. this
phraseology is used not so much as a backhanded jab at Chico but rather to
highlight the lack of precision in the topic wording. the jab is just a net
Our debates are already full of this, as they should be. There is no escape
from fine distinctions used by both teams for their advantage. We already
have a lot of "not my plan" and "not my case," so I fail to see how this is a
unique problem. How about, "not my regulation"?
true enough. although there appears a vast difference between "not my
plan/no link"argumentation that derives from the policy discussions than
from the vague wording in the deep eco resolution. for example, an
affirmative mechanism that reduces airborne pollutants through a mechanism
that avoids the spending disad does so in a very different manner than an
affirmative that excludes deep eco bad argumentation by asserting that such
actions are not included in their "principles."
"R: That the USFG should adopt substantial regulatory reform to decrease
airborne pollutants within the US.
this topic has a precision problem with the phrase "airborne pollutants.""
Yes, it is broad. It is air, but it is broad. I have no problem with that.
What with an entire year for three organizations, I prefer a broad topic.
i also have no particular problem with broad topic wordings. my objection
was that this resolution is not a narrow alternative to the broad
environmental pollutants topic wording. the question is one of intent; if
this was intended as a narrow alternative to environmental pollutants it
fails miserably. and the suggestions for refining this to "hazardous air
pollutants" or "criteria air pollutants" was an attempt to make this a more
narrow alternative to the brioad environmental pollutants wording.
"carbon dioxide is not a pollutant "
One card does not a claim make. A "functional" approach to pollutant would
indicate that what does harm is a pollutant.
again, a question of topic wording utility. this is not an isolated phrase,
every definition of pollutant that discussed carbon dioxide explicitly
excluded it. the reasons carbon dioxide is excluded was also provided. if
the desire is for a climate topic, this is a poor topic wording choice.
I am prepared to go with this, though. The real problem, David, may be that
the air pollution topic includes pollutants you don't like (too many of them,
see your notes from above) but doesn't contain the "pollutants" you do like,
like CO2. Your complaint seems to be that the topic is too broad but not
broad enough to contain the gas you want to debate about.
precisely, assuming for the distinctions above. although the clarification
ought be made: i hate warming debates and climate is not the area i "want
to debate about." i am not a scientist and am often baffled by teams that
spew climate cards without explanation. its much easier for me to listen to
a russian nationalism debate than a climate debate any day. that said,
every indication is that debaters want to have the climate debates and thats
cool. i always warn teams running climate cases of my relative ignorance of
the distinctions of the discourse and expect teams that want good points to
make the explanation why their evidence makes a relevant claim (something
useful and often lacking in any debate.)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page