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

The Human rights resolution


I am becoming more swayed for resolution number one, which I will repeat 
for the benefit of those reading:

Resolved: That the USFG should substantially change its trade and or aid 
policies to increase protection for human rights in one or more of the 
following SE Asian Nationa <list deleted>.

I saw posts to day that argued that this resolutions is very suceptible 
to "do it not for human rights" counterplans. I disagree for the 
following reasons.

1) I think that when read this resolution only calls for the affirmative 
to change its aid policies to increae their protection, not to condition 
such trade/aid.  For example we could ban the sale of torture weapons to 
Brunei and claim it increased human rights.  Or weapons sales could be 
banned, and a rights advantage claimed.  You could argue effects T, but I 
don't think that position will be very compelling.  You could stop aid to 
the phillipine army or something neat like that.

2) "do it not for X but for Y" was a common counterplan on the CEDA 
military intervention topic.  Cornell used to make a living out of do it 
for security not for democracy.  If you wrote your case like above, the 
counterplan is the plan... and the only net benefit would be a human 
rights debate anyway.  We dealt with the security counterplan in CEDA, 
and things were OK.  and if it provides the negative a weapon, so what?
write your case with it as a consideration and it won't matter that much.

  So I think that this resolution is fine in that respect. There are 
other things you can do with it.  You could change your trade policy to 
reflect asian human rights.  nothing stops you from defining human rights 
as you will.  But that might provide for some interesting kritik fground 
for how we should view them.  Cultural relativism debates versus cultural 
imperialism might provide fertile kritik ground for smaller schools armed 
with the argument. (hint.. do some research there)

  The resolution also provides good Political disad or focus/spending 
links to the foreign aid budget one way.  The trade aspect might provide 
a good WTO type of argument (and we should be sitting on trade files form 
last year, another kick start to smaller programs).

 Another interesting narrowing aspect.  With the limiting literature on 
this subject, we could be discussing aid with respect to say, cambodia, 
arms sales to indonesia, and trade with vietnam.  Each coutnry might only 
be affected by one part of the res, although I doubt it.

  If the literature is that tight, so will affs.  If not, then debaters 
might forget about the Solvency problem and start constructing premises 
again.  Which might make debate better.  

  The negative ground is more predictqble, the case areas smaller, but 
still affecting many aspects like security and economics... etc...

All in all, I am going to lobby my squad to vote for this resolution.  I 
simply feel that "security assistance" is too vague of a term (NDTers 
agree?)  and non-military foreign policy is jsut too damn big and vague, 
I don't think military issues will be limited out at all, it will be a 
link to get there, but only a link form an effect away.

I'd like to continue debate on this...but I'm pretty convinced...

We have 5 solid case ideas on this topic already, have solvency found.. 
and are looking into them further.  and we haven't scratched the surface.

I really like this topic, and I encourage smaller schools to jump on the 
bandwagon if they are concerned.  The big schools will find good smaller 
cases, and I think this res benefits everyone.

VOTE NUMBER ONE :)

Ken

--------------------------------
Ken DeLaughder              
kd0519@broncho.ucok.edu      "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...the ability to
Eastern New Mexico Univ.      destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Portales, NM                  to the power of the Force..."
505-562-2741 (office)             -Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page