[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CEDA-L digest #961 - topic comments
Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
==========
dklein@dailynews.net
"the potential list of hazardous air pollutants is rather large."
True. This is why a "list" of pollutants made no sense. There are many NEW
chemicals developed every year which are threatening. As well, and as Becky
pointed out, any list needs to have dioxin on it, yet some dioxin is produced
at many, many stages of the industrial process, so having dioxin on there is
a problem.
On the other hand, how many of these, do you think, would make good cases?
How many have good solvency evidence and don't have unacceptable compliance
costs, etc.? Yes, the list is large. Even the air pollution topic is broad.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu>
"some people NEED to get out of the sheltered life of academia. try living in
new york city. every other word is fuck this fuck that. if it offends you
sorry, but "welcome to the new world"(hey matt)."
Crude and inexact expression abounds, but perhaps should not in our context.
I don't particularly want debate to be like a fight between two stereotypic
NYC cabbies. I bet you'd give low points. I bet you'd start deleting such
posts without reading them.
I guess I am not offended. I simply marvel at the inability of some people to
express themselves without using an expression for sexual intercourse. My
point about most "cussin." (as Lemoine would say) is that it lacks either
argumentative value or clarity. I think swearing is good for "emotional
release" (I have told some people to fuck off and it felt good .... I was
[sadly enough] expressing a total lack of personal concern for them), but
once again I am not sure that is what is being called for.
I believe it is possible to answer Glenn Ellingson's arguments in a way that
makes a lot more sense than to suggest which vegetable he has inserted into
his rectum, as was done (not by you). Surely how we feel about topics has
little to do with which vegetable you choose for this purpose.
I am reminded of the part in Cyrano where he takes offense at the way someone
makes fun of his nose, not because it is rude to do so, but because it is
done with a lack of flair and intellect. That would at least help.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu>
"From: yuri although I think it would have been amusing to see bill and glen
counterplan with "no, jethro and annalei will eat nothing but steak," what is
the negative ground for the "we" resolution. "no, you should destroy nature?"
"
Yuri, if you think that negative's are condemned on that topic to advocating
the destruction of nature, then you are not as creative at thinking of
arguments as I have heard. I bet given a few days you would come up with a
fine strategy.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu>
"its what most of the debaters want, although it doesn't seem important."
The "it" is policy resolutions. Because one of the six is a non-policy
resolution we are neglecting the desires of the debaters, who want policy
resolutions? Based on what poll? I agree that my debaters want policy
resolutions, but they don't want ALL policy resolutions. Based on your
position I would have to ignore those that do want a non-policy option in
order to prove to you that I de respect the desires of those who do want
policy resolutions. Just because the L is full of policy hacks like me does
not mean that these other people don't belong to our community.
I want both preferences to be reflected on the ballot, and you only want one.
Let the readers decide who is excluding which set of preferences.
------------------------------
(yuri?)" <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu>
"sure, we can talk about the "values" that are currently part of the process,
but I don't want to tell my teams their ground is anthro good. it doesn't
seem to compelling to say "he let's go destroy shit!" "
Yuri, there you go, claiming to be a bad coach again, unable to think of
arguments. I don't believe you. You can be and are creative.
------------------------------
Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>
"I have read a number of folks defending other ones, but they have done so
from a "well, it won't necessarily suck" standpoint rather than an "I really
like it" standpoint."
Untrue. I "really like" every topic on the list. I don't like them all as
much, but I am willing to debate any of them. Mike, the committee voted
unanimously for this list, and I think most of us felt this way, although I
won't speak for the others.
------------------------------
dklein@dailynews.net
"perhaps the full details of this survey could be provided for the
community. "
It is at the office, but as I recall it was 12 schools wanted only non-policy
on the ballot, 15 wanted only policy, and 35 wanted a mixture of policy and
non-policy topics. I wish the sample size could have been bigger, but if we
have 200 schools, there are AT LEAST 20%+ who want a non-policy
representation.
"its interesting using terms like bigotry to describe advocacy of a policy
only perspective. it makes easier the off-hand dismissal of the arguments
because nobody wants to be a bigot. the recent past of ceda would indicate
the more pervasive exclusion came from the value resolution advocates; it
was not that long ago that teams were dropped for running a plan in ceda."
Let's try this definition thing.
"bigot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics
and is intolerant of those who differ." [AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY].
OK, your position is: strongly partial and intolerant of the position of
others (not even allow it on the ballot). I think it works.
"sounds vaguely similar to the "silent majority." and that the community
could "handle" a value topic is not a reason to debate one for the year or
even to place one on the ballot."
They are not silent. They answered a survey and expressed themselves.
"there are several reasons why there should be no non-policy resolutions on
the ballot. the first, and one which I have yet to see a rejoinder offered
to, is that this is a unique year for merger and cross-over between ndt and
ceda. the ndt community acted in good faith in altering their topic
selection process with the apparent assurance that a policy topic would be
debated."
There is no merger, but there may be cross over. I believe the committee was
mindful of this while at the same time indicating that we have to represent
the members of the organization. I want cross over. I worked very hard to get
the two necessary motions passed (early release, year long topic), I
sponsored them and then led the discussion at the meetings and on the
listserv, and while I think each was a good idea in the CEDA context alone, I
favor increasing options for ADA, CEDA, and NDT schools to debate each other.
However, my work, hope, and interest in this direction is insufficient for me
to tell 20%+ of CEDA schools their desires don't count because of my
particular political agenda.
"a second reason is that just as the claim has been made that policy only
advocates should not get what they want simply because they want it,
advocates of non-policy topics should likewise not get it just because they
want it. "
In a democratic system you take different approaches which are offered and
submit them for consideration and voting. We have done that, and you would
not. I would stand strong by your side if there was an attempt to put all
non-policy topics on the ballot.
"finally, the non-policy topic wordings are at this point undefended with
topic papers or literature. I understand that these are "forthcoming," but
that also seems a bit hollow."
Are you saying that people are lying about writing defenses for these topics?
Seems a bit hollow? That means you don't trust them. The vote goes out on
July 14th. Is 30 days enough time for you?
And what am I doing here but defending these topics? Is this a discussion?
Just as John Meany carried his ideas through by way of writing to the
listserv, talking to people personally, and back channel, so I am fully
engaged in this process.
ABOUT TOPIC PAPERS:
I like them. I am the first topic committee chair to formally include them in
the process. I solicited them, I indicated what would be good to have in
them, I evaluated them, I copied them and sent them to people not on the
list, etc., etc. I hope that the role of topic area papers and topic wording
papers will increase next year, when we will have a lot of time to do all of
this. The process this year is necessarily condensed because of the way we
are changing our procedures from a semester to a year topic WITH an earlier
release. This year we didn't have as many as I had hoped, and some of those
were retreads of previous topic papers. When I arrived at the meeting I had
one topic wording paper. The committee found it unacceptable to just put one
topic on the ballot. Now THAT would have denied democratic choice.
------------------------------
FBLN51A@prodigy.com ( JOSEPH H BOYLE)
"I do not personally feel that any *slot* on the resolution canvass should
be *reserved* for *any* particular *type* of resolution. The key words here
are "type of resolution", "reserved" and "any". The example that was being
used was value topics but it applies equally to policy topics. You may have
missed a better explanation of this during the pissing contest slusher and I
were having (sorry everyone) over the course of 3 posts or so. My argument
is not that we should EXCLUDE any type of resolution but that we should not
INCLUDE any particular resolution TYPE or set a limit or quota UNTIL
RESOLUTIONS ARE DRAFTED. Once we have a pile of resolutions on the topic
committee's table and they decided "We're going to pick the best 6 topics
and put them on the ballot" then the topic committee should pick the BEST
six topics and put them on the ballot. The topic committee should NOT put a
topic on the ballot just for the sake of having a particular type on there.
"
This is the old saw one hears in electoral politics. Do you represent your
constituents or your preferences as to the way you think things should be. My
tendency is to ram through what I want, but when I ran for this office I
promised in a letter to the membership that I would consider their opinions,
and would not impose my preferences on the organization if there was
considerable popular resistance. I am sorry you would have done it
differently. J. Boyle, topic committee chair, might just pick what for him
seemed best and ignore the preferences of the membership, and would be in a
very different situation than I am in now. I'll take the heat, but I will not
exclude 20%+ of our schools in order to avoid criticism on this issue from
those very few on the listserv who won't let this die.
"But don't do a disservice to the large number of schools who want a
non-policy topic by putting one on the ballot that is inferior to the policy
resolutions, or one that didn't get the same attention as the policy
resolutions."
I do not believe we have. The only non-policy topic as the anthro-bio topic.
------------------------------
JKM1993@aol.com
"No one has yet offered a topic defense of any resolution presented
exclusively at the topic committee meeting last week. There is little time
remaining for serious consideration of these issues (in particular, due to
limited access to university resources or alternative plans during the
holiday)..."
You raise an excellent point which needs to be made in a broader way. I have
offered a by-law amendment which changes the dates for voting on topic areas
and topics. This new schedule would mean no more summer voting. I oppose
summer voting for the reasons you mention, including the fact that students
are not on campus and are largely disenfranchised by summer voting.
Having said that, summer voting and consideration is inescapable for this
year. Vote for my proposal and it won't happen again. The best we can hope
for now is to have essays about the other topics available within five or
four weeks of voting. That is the best we can do. Now, we return home from
the meeting on Monday, this post comes on Wednesday. I knew that the internet
would speed things up a bit, but those are the breaks, I guess.
Thank you for your patience. I know the "we" essay is close to being
completed now. The animal rights essay is coming out next Monday, I believe.
I am hopeful for the bio-anthro essay by the beginning of next week.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu>
"my complaint is that the only reason YOU give to put a value topic on the
ballot is that some people want them. "
To me preferences make a difference in a democracy. This is a simple
difference in perspectives. I am unwilling to ignore what 20%+ of our schools
want on a topic ballot and you are.
"I don't think most of the debaters want one, do you? I don't think you'll
see many if any non-policy rounds no matter what the topic is so why waste a
slot on the ballot with a value topic. there have to be enough coaches out
there that realize this will happen, or where have ya'll been the last ten
years?"
I cut my first proliferation card in 1963. I have "been around." Your vague
assertions about community preference seem anecdotal and insufficient. Based
on what I know about the community and what people tell me and the survey
data I do my best. We are clearly moving in a policy direction, but I am not
yet convinced that those who prefer a non-policy alternative on the ballot
are excess baggage and need to be tossed aside. You may believe differently.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page