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

Topic(ality) Thoughts.

Okay, so a techno-geek like me would rather debate infotech, but I think
that the environment topic is a great realm for debater-advocates and for
alternative views & interpretations of resolutions. I'm trying to keep in
mind that a huge body of literature deals with the meaning of the term
"environment." I am even skeptical about the philosophical and
psychological implications of the use of such a term. To distinguish
oneself or one's own species from an "environment" which it occupies
sounds like a classical self-other distinction (which helped to spur
delusional thinking like a clockwork model of the universe, where the
environment is a machine that can be classified, broken down, analyzed in
parts, and understood). Given these personal concerns about such a topic,
I would be interested in seeing topics abandon the term environment
altogether. It seems to me that the term neither limits (remember: C++ is
a programming environment, and Windows95 is an operating environment, and
organizational communication can compose a business environment, etc.)
nor is it necessary to discuss relations between different manifestations
of being.

For a value resolution, how about "Anthropocentrism should be
abandoned."?? It's supported a healthy body of literature for a long time,
and regardless of the term "should" this resolution asks us to debate
ideologies and values. The largest problem with this literature is that
those who generally use the term anthropocntrism use it in a derogatory
manner...

Perhaps a broader resolution might say something like: "Resolved: That the
dominant paradigm should change." Pretty damn broad, should gets to be
interpreted by policy hacks in a way to force the rest of the res into a
policy case and the nonpolicy oriented can motivate the should toward a
moral or value-oriented stance by interpreting it from the other parts of
the resolution. Yeah, you'll debate socialism, anarchy, postmodernism,
MLM, syndicalism, anthropocentrism, deep-e, ecofemm, patriarchy, etc.
'till you're blue in the face, but that's the idea. Beside, on any
ecology topic such debates are inevitable.

Bottom line: I think that the literature on stipulative meaning and the
moral obligations to change our currently shallow ecological consciousness
is strong enough that it can supersede any resolutional interpretation
that negatives attempt to force affirmatives into anyway. Why would you
ever run topicality against a case which is 8 minutes of critiquing the
entire assumptions of topicality?? If anything, negatives who run
topicality on such cases will be eating a critique called the 1AC. Hence,
I suppose the resolution wording is irrelevant to those who wish to take a
more radical environmental stance. Hell, I suppose if you're willing to
make the case, any attempt to enforce one "right" resolutional meaning
is probably indefensible.

So... Why bother with topic wordings at all? Maybe it's just become an art
to me, I'm not sure, but I still like to see the pretty, unidirectional,
specific agent topics... Odd contradiction I suppose, but one I'm
satisfied with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Gehrke                    http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~pjgehrke/
Communication Arts (502)      mailto: pjgehrke@ecst.csuchico.edu
California State U. Chico     Office: (916) 898-4794
Chico, CA. 95928-0502         Fax: (916) 898-4096

"T?? Does that come with crumpets or scones?"
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page