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

re:topic comments 958

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net

"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
 deep ecology...."

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
 benefit."

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."

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net 

"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.

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net 

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