change and bi-directionality

[gabp@juno.com (Gabrielle Prisco)]

although i agree with ken and others that a verb outlining resolutional
direction would serve as a rough guide for the res., i believe that we
also need to consider the direct object of the verb itself more closely. 
for example, glen frappier's original post on the mexico topics relevance
for framing this year's res. stated that the word change was too broad
and rather than limit the nations included in the res. we should restrict
the verb used.  i believe, however, that the broadness of that res. came
more from the direct object of the verb "foreign policy" than from the
verb itself.  as pat gerkhe pointed out "increase" and "decrease" can be
exploded in numerous ways.  the only substitutes i see for a
bi-directional verb such as "change" are either a) other bi-directional
verbs such as "alter" or b)uni-directional verbs such as "increase" or
"decrease" which are really not all that limiting.  the way to narrow the
res. successfully is to have a combination of somewhat limited verb,
limited direct object such as "trade policies" or "human rights" (see
sean upton's post for a well-reasoned defense of several of these types
of options) along with a limited list of nations (such as the ASEAN
ones).  basically, i hope we don't forget to consider that the verb's
direct object is just as important, or perhaps more so, than the verb
itself.
gabrielle prisco
vanderbilt debate

---

• Prev by Date: topics
• Next by Date: SEATO?
• Prev by thread: topics
• Next by thread: SEATO?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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