ans Andy on Linkage

[Gordon Mitchell <gordonm+@pitt.edu>]

On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Andrew Ryan wrote:

> The linkage topic is too limited for the affirmative.  Doyle was one of the
> first to realize the "dearth in US policies toward Southeast Asia" and
> narrowing that area to linking or conditioning specific human rights policies
> can't be an improvement.

The linkage topic playfully proposed by the virtual cyber-troika of
myself, Doyle, and his porch beer committee is really just another way of
making a straight-up human rights topic more workable and equitable.  If
you think human rights alone is too narrow, then you should make that
argument.

The fact that there are a dearth of extant U.S. policies toward the topic
countries does not necessarily circumscribe aff plan choice under a
linkage topic; it would be easy to write the rez to allow affs to create
+new+ trade/aid policies and require that the aff tie their continuation
to human rights concerns.

> Also, it's biased against the affirmative in one critical way.  It locks the
> affirmative into debating two advantage areas-- its substantive one (we
> complete the sale of weapon X) and its human rights one (SEA country Y makes
> a human rights concession).  This might as well just mean the affirmative
> claims human rights, because the example that Gordon gives obliviates the
> substantive advantage.  The counterplan to do the plan unconditionally solves
> the security advantage and eliminates all affirmative specific ground and
> merely forces the debates on a generic.  

That's right.  As I explained above, this is one version of a human rights
resolution.  My tank example was provided to show that affs would have a
harder time wiggling out of the human rights debate under the linkage
topic than they would under a more loosely worded rez that just said
"change human rights policy."

> Gordon says the link debates get
> better, which I'm sure they do when the resolution mandates you link, but it
> also guarantees repetitive debate.  Every 2NR will be about their disad
> outweighing the advantage in preferably a consequentalist mindset, and the
> 2AR will be about the deontological impacts of rights.

1) I listed three potential generic DAs, there are many more potential
ones stemming off this guaranteed link--enough, I suspect to generate a
good deal of variety.  

2) I think you oversimplify the potential subtlety and texture
of debates about linkage when you suggest that "every 2NR will be about
their disad ... in a consequentialist mindset, and the 2AR will be about
the deontological impact of rights": 

a) affs will likely offer differing justifications for their linkage
policies, some deontological, some consequential, some based in
conceptions of Western ethics, some rooted in ethical norms grounded in
other cultures; 

b) negs will also have the option of taking either the consequentialist or
deontological argumentative path: bizcon is a possibility (MNCs pullout
when they realize that their investments could be jeopardized by spreading
linkage policies), and so is a cultural imperialism kritik/da (U.S. HR
high-handedness offends international norms, is morally bankrupt).
 
> However, with a security topic area, the benefits of the linkage topic can be
> debated as a CP.   If the affirmative gives a weapon or a security guarantee
> unconditionally, the CP competes and the educational benefits of the linkage
> topic are accrued.

Nice idea, but empirically false.  Unless the requirement for
*unconditional* security assistance is embedded in the resolution, aff
teams will successfully "absorb" the CP.  This occurred in debates on the
Africa, development assistance, and security assistance topics.  Aff would
say "give aid to X."  Neg would CP with "X abuses HR; condition aid on HR
improvements." Judge would say "I buy aff's perm; there's nothing in the
plan that +rules out+ conditioning the aid."  Tournament Director would
say "affirmative" eight times in a row announcing results of octas.  In
van ride home, everyone would say "We better update Clinton; there's
hardly any darned guaranteed generic ground for the neg!"

--Gordon Mitchell,
University of Pittsburgh

---

• Prev by Date: how to reach me
• Next by Date: Security Policy in SEA
• Prev by thread: how to reach me
• Next by thread: Security Policy in SEA
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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