[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
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
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 :)
email@example.com "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
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page