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

process/generic disads

Having returned from brief respite, I've been casually glancing at 
this thread, so I'll try not to misrepresent anyone.  But it seems to 
me this is an old argument.  Today it's "Clinton," "USFG action," 
"Bipart,"--and I'd even include the econ/FRB disads since the same 
"applies to every possible topic/case" logic seems to operate.  When 
I was debating, it was "everything links to Malthus, deficits 
increase unemployment deaths, Peltzman, etc."  When I was coaching 
NDT at the end of the 80's, it was "Bush, Gorbacev..."  Judging NDT a 
few years earlier, it was "New Left, New Right. . ."  

Croasmun has a point, and this time, not just the top of his head :-).
Judging the past few years, it seems to me we all rant and rave about 
how much we like or hate a certain topic, and when the majority vote 
prevails on a topic, we do every damn thing EXCEPT debate that topic. 
Sure, "political" considerations ARE a legitimate part of every 
topic; how it affects Clinton perception, etc., IS a "relevant" 
issue.  But is it the SALIENT issue?  Sometimes maybe; sometimes 
maybe not.  I'm troubled when my decision in a debate has to come 
down to "does it really make a difference if we pass this plan now or 
in two weeks?"  Example:  I heard that type of debate (delay 
desirability cp=da) claiming that Clinton had a key meeting in 
four days with Middle East leadership and he must have TOTAL focus on 
that alone to avert escalation and eventual war.  This was at a time 
when I will bet a year's salary (not much in Utah) that Clinton's 
PRIMARY focus at that time was "OUCH!  MY KNEE HURTS!!!"  Now this 
negative strategy was against a "down the middle" aff case that 
anyone should have had great on-point strategies against. 

On the other hand, Slusher and others make some legitimate arguments 
about the necessity of political considerations when analyzing 
complex policy topics.  After all, "political" and "policy" are the 
same root word.  And far be it from me to deny negative's whatever 
strategy they think will win.  It may not win, but I'll still listen 
to it (unlike one "wannabe-a-cool-judge" at CEDA nats who I saw vote 
against a team just because he DIDN'T like that they refused to run 
an irrelevant Clinton DA while ignoring actual arguments made).  
Again, I think the issue (and what I understand Croasmun to be 
arguing) is whether process/generic disads create the BEST debate.  
Sometimes, I'm pretty sure they do.  I think we are in an era where 
we're having fairly large real-world debates about the role of the 
federal government, the powers of the Presidency relative to Congress 
and/or the Supreme Court, the volatility of public sensitivities to 
political actions, etc.  But it does indeed pain me to see nothing 
BUT generic strategies or process arguments.  Maybe the solution is 
for someone to do a topic paper for next year that is essentially a 
"process" topic (I think Croasmun suggested such a topic).  
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what negative strategies CAN 
be developed when at least several of our topic choices can be easily 
boiled down to "Resolved:  that the US should do something in 
Southeast Asia."

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