Topicality on the problem area

[Pacedebate@aol.com]

I thought we were going to have an opportunity to suggest changes to the
topic committee's proposed resolutions after having read their defenses. I
know I held off on making substantive points until I read the defenses. I
felt I would be able to make more insightful comments if I understood the
perspective of the topic comm.
I also believe this was the concern many expressed about the rigor these
topics were faced with. Rez #1 (Kate, Becky, et. al's.) resolution was
transformed as people had time to dwell on it for a few weeks and make
comments. The other topics will go to the voters with substantially less
scrutiny.

Tuna writes:
>>>
So, let me get this straight, this is a topicality argument, right? These
topics are not "drawn from" environmental regulation is your argument. If
they are found in this discourse then it is OK.
>>>

Yep, it is a T argument. However, "drawn from" is what I would consider a
broad standard, in fact, too broad. As someone who voted for the topic area
"environmental regulations" I believe I have a right to expect that debates
next year will focus on environmental regulations. Certainly each topic
proposed may have something to do with the environment but that could be said
for any topic. For example,

R: That the United States should expand it's involvement in the assistance of
underdeveloped countries in Africa.

Environment cases: give aid to africa to solve environmental problems (1000s
of possible cases), increase regulation of MNC's in the U.S. to stop export
death, enter cooperative agreements (treaties) to solve env. problems, etc.

R: that the United States federal government should implement a comprehensive
information technology policy within the United States.

Environment cases: info sharing on the env., satellite upgrades for env.
purposes (weather, mapping, monitor warming), generic tech solves env., etc.

R:  Resolved: The President of the United States should create a new national
Security Strategy.

Env. cases: broaden NSS def. to include the env., use the military to prevent
LDC env. destruction, use the military for domestic env. problems (like the
Army Corp of Engineers already does)

In case you hadn't noticed yet all of the examples listed above were from
other topic papers. Virtually any topic can be justified as having a relation
to the environment. I'm asking that we take a bit narrower construction of
whether our proposed resolutions fall within the area of "environmental
regulations".

Tuna wrote in reference to the animal rights topic:
>>>
Can anyone doubt that non-human species are something we debate about when
debating the environment? I don't. Does granting legal rights sound like a
form of regulation to you? It does to me.
>>>

My answers to these questions are yes and could be. Animals are part of the
environment and legal rights might take the form of regulations but they
don't have to. I think this area "animal rights" could easily be fit within
the env. regs area, (in fact, the proposed topic dealing with the endangered
species act does exactly that) I just don't think this topic does it. 


Tuna writes:
>>>
I offer a useful standard -- THE DESCRIPTOR TEST...
Previously, the topic committee has released a list of descriptors (ideas
which might come up) with the topic areas. This year we did not. If you would
have accepted "animal rights" and "deep ecology" and "anthropocentrism" as
descriptors for things likely to come up in a problem area like
"environmental regulation" then everything is fine. And I believe that the
vast majority of people would have found those descriptors acceptable.
>>>

This is the reason I hated the descriptors. As a voter I had no idea what I
was voting for. That was a bad way of elucidating what topic areas included
and the topic committee was smart for getting rid of it. I suggest a counter
standard : A negative asks the 1AC speaker "What environmental regulations do
you implement?" the 1AC says "We don't advocate any regulations" if a
proposed resolution allows this 1AC response (for a substantial number of
expected cases) then it is outside the scope of this topic area.

I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only one who feels that the
animal rights topic is quite a stretch. Glen Strickland affirmed my comments
and Steve Mancuso wrote:
>>>
This was quite a stray from the problem area selected by voters and caught
many of us by surprise.  We await the promised "short essay" by the topic
committee which explains what affirmative and negative arguments would be
with this topic.  Clearly much of this topic does NOT involved "environmental
regulation" in any obvious sense.
>>>

And upon further thought I think the cx test I explained above proves the
deep eco and the biocentric vs antho topics also stray quite a bit from the
problem area. 

I appreciate Tuna's willingness to have the topic committee consider this
objection.


Hope everyone had a happy fourth,


Tim Mahoney, Pace U.

---

• Prev by Date: CEDA-L digest 962 - topic comments
• Next by Date: air pollutants topic
• Prev by thread: CEDA-L digest 962 - topic comments
• Next by thread: air pollutants topic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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