Research the Topic Area

[Steve Mancuso <steveman@umich.edu>]

One of the strengths of this topic selection process is the time we have
between the announcement of the topic area and the announcement of
potential topic wordings.  

Let's take advantage of that opportunity and conduct actual research to
inform our opinions about specific topic wording.

I am concerned that in the midst of this process, some assertions, made
by well intentioned commentators, are not supported by research.

For instance, I simply do not believe that the U.S. has "millions of
policies" toward any of the topic countries, nor anything closely
approximating even "hundreds" of policies.  Conceptually, since the
absence of a policy permits a policy "change" to adopt a new policy,
there are theoretically a large number of imaginable affirmative cases.
But are there really articles advocating a substantial number of these
policies?

Since the release of the topic area I have read about a dozen articles
(from recent issues of Asian Survey, The Pacific Review, and
Contemporary Southeast Asia, chosen based upon my perception of their
most direct relevance) and am struck by the absence of articles
concerning U.S. policy recommendations.  Even an article in a 1996 issue
of The Pacific Review entitled:  "Southeast Asian prospects and
realities:  American hopes and fears" did not contain a single example
of U.S. policy recommendation for change.

These readings demonstrate that Southeast Asia is indeed an incredibly
interesting part of the world, as the topic paper indicated.  But I have
yet to come across articles advocating affirmative plans, in any area.

I am not saying that there are no affirmatives, or that clever,
industrious debaters will not find an ample number of affirmatives.  I
am sure there are many, many articles advocating U.S. policy change,
from the profound to the obscure.  I am just saying the number of these
articles may be many fewer than we imagine.  The number of these
articles is certainly smaller (at first glance) than I initially
imagined.

I recognize that many people do not have time to go out and do research
before the committee has to decide topic wordings.  But we should try to
have some support for our assertions about the debatability of certain
wordings based on actual research.  Tuna's suggestion for people to
submit "papers" on certain wordings is probably the logical conclusion
of the point I am trying to make.

I think it would be helpful if anyone who has found articles advocating
specific U.S. policies toward Southeast Asia would post the cites. 

I am not for broad topics.  No one is a more committed believer in the
value of predictable negative ground than I.  But part of that
predictability comes from early recognition of certain obvious
affirmative cases - like climate last year.  We need to write topics
that include obvious affirmative cases - cases based upon widely
available and apparent affirmative articles.  

Our discussion of topic wording should be informed when possible by
specifics based upon actual research.

Steve Mancuso

---

• Prev by Date: utnif: job opening
• Next by Date: Re: A simple reminder :
• Prev by thread: utnif: job opening
• Next by thread: NLU Fall 1997 Tournament
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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