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

Response to Meany RE Animals Wording Paper


>Re animal rights topic paper

>There are few limits on the scope of this resolution. 

True--but there are some.  While these limits make for a still broad
topic, the remaining breadth is tempered by what I think affirmatives
will have to do in order to defend microscopic interpretations.

>The topic paper makes the claim that the issues of environmental
>reforms and
>deep ecology are implicated in "animal rights". Indeed, other topics
>(specifically, the other topics yet supported by topic papers) are mere
>subsets of this proposition.

>In addition, the topic paper notes few limits on the policy actions of
>the affirmative: agent of action, in the United States, and burdens of
>solvency.  In other words, any workable policy, authorized by the
>USFG, that increases "rights" of non-human animals in the United
>States, regardless of the locality for policy implementation (national
>or international) is acceptable.

Right--provided that the mandate is within the
jurisdiction/enforceability of the USFG.  I'm not certain that this
really opens things up any more than it would with another topic of its
phrasing.

>What might those "rights" be?


>This issue is skirted somewhat in the topic paper. The definition for
>"right" in the topic paper, from the American Heritage Dictionary, is
>an understanding of the word, "right", as meaning "correct" (i.e.,
>"One plus one equals two...That's _right_"; or, "Genocide is an
>evil...That's _right_.")...How this definition fits the context of the
>resolution advocated by the topic paper is beyond my ken...

>I presumed that an understanding of the term "rights" in the resolution
>referred to a legally enforceable claim, rather than a notion of
>correctness.  This former understanding is consistent with agency in
>the resolution and the policy literature noted in the topic paper and
>bibliography. It is also available in the American Heritage
>Dictionary.

My mistake.  I don't know why I included the second AMERICAN HERITAGE
definition.  I was assuming the legal interpretation, as was the
committee.  Certainly debaters will be better off with a legal
dictionary or context-specific source in their T debates and
interpretations.

>If the resolution supports any legally enforceable claim for non-human
>animals, what policies are excluded by the language of this
>resolution? For example, isn't it arguable that non-human animals,
>like their human counterparts, have rights to preservation that ought
>to include the destruction/disarmament of chemical, biological, and
>nuclear weapons, the installation of ballistic missile defense, etc.?
>Isn't it arguable that non-human animals have rights to liberty that
>are threatened by any land-use policy? Isn't it arguable that
>non-human animals deserve a right to reside within territorial
>boundaries that respect humans, opening argument from any
>other traditional policy proposition focusing on problem areas that
>primarily affect human beings?...The topic paper, in evidence from
>Benton, even supports these and other new constructions...

You are right.  In fact, most advocates of animal liberation would argue
that the separations presently justifying human animals receiving
rights not afforded to non-human animals are artificial at best and not
defenseable given our interdependence in nature.  Admittadly the
potential for cases ideas seems bizzare, but affirmatives don't have to
go the extremes suggested in this criticism (although they are
debatable).  Rights might also include rights to not be consumed,
rights to not be experimented upon, rights to be represented in
strengthened or newly formed organizations, as well as rights to not
have habitate destroyed, rights to liberty, etc.  

>I do not mind a concept of debate that erases artificial limits on
>argument creativity and construction. In fact, I have supported
>experimentation in debate that includes decentralization of the topic
>selection process and suspension of formal topics. While I support
>topic-centered debate, I also see the dynamic, political, and
>strategic possibilities of policy debate without a formal topic. As a
>consequence, I could support this resolution, which incorporates the
>possibilities for many, many entire debate propositions. (Although I
>am reasonably sure that there isn't much community sentiment for such
>ideas at this time).

I am actually coming around on the possibility of a non-topic
experiment.  I appreciate the tenacity with which you have defended your
viewpoint.  It has kept the debate alive long enough for me to consider
the idea--I think it would be great for the community.  I do also think
you are right in that there is little sentiment for it (or this topic
if the L dialogue is at all representative :) at this time.

>What I do mind is the 'busyness' of the language of this proposition.
>If the resolution is to be a "no-thing" resolution, I prefer my
>minimalist vision, which excludes terms in the resolution. (I have
>contrasted the benefits of a "no-thing" resolution with even
>extraordinarily broad propositions before; I won't repeat the ideas
>here). I'd prefer a resolution without terms, rather
>than a resolution with so many terms, to accomplish that similar end...

Here is where our paths diverge.  Were this a busily phrased resolution
I think I would agree.  But, while broad, this resolution does have
limits.  While affirmatives can move in several directions, they must
deal centrally with the idea of rights being afforded to non-human
animals--at a species level.  The rights debate is rich for both sides. 
I agree with others who have observed the interrelationships between
value and policy advocacy.  BUT I can count on one hand the number of
rounds in which I have seen this interrelationship in debaters'
rhetoric.  This topic, while maybe not inherently, certainly has the
potential effect of bringing out that debate.  I don't think
affirmatives are going to be able to pull a right out of one hat and a
species out of another and proceed with the debate.  Is the species
able to justify the right?  Can it be accountable if given the right?
Lots of questions will be dealt with.  I don't see this as an example
of the no-topic approach.  Indeed I think debates can be focused in the
kinds of advocacy that will take place.

I fact, I think I'd rather be negative than affirmative!

Thanks for your helpful insights.  I hope people will consider this
resolution in light of what I think are some exciting possibilities.

>John Meany
>Claremont Colleges

Scott Jensen
McNeese State University
(Aimee Adamo for the summer--102027,310@Compuserve.Com)			

Distribution:

To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate > INTERNET:CEDA-L@CORNELL.EDU
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page