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

Topic committee info

>From Slusher and Glen, on Greg's account.

Hello, from Chicago.  Glen Frappier and I are up here at the topic committee
meeting at Wheaton and based on some discussion today Carrie Crenshaw asked
us to pose a question to the community and to defend our position.  The
question the committee is facing tomorrow is whether or not the object of
fiat in the resolution should read "one or more ASEAN member nations" or
"one or more Southeast Asian nations".  The committee wants to decide
whether or not all 5 or 6 of the resolutions should use the same object or
if we could have some diversity.  It's important to note that Glen, myself
(Slusher), and Mike Krueger (MTSU) are the only non-topic- committee members
here, and Carrie and the members of the committee have been VERY open to
allowing input from non-committee members.  All you have to do is show up.
>From the moment we arrived, the committee was very open to receiving student
and coach input.  Also it's important that I mention that Carrie put
together all the listserv discussion and included all the proposed
resolutions that were posted or sent to her via e-mail and these were
discussed in the meeting that took place today.  We think that's awesome.

Well, tomorrow is the day the resolutions are finalized.  Carrie should have
sent out the proposed 6 discussed today.  Note that all of them use the
phrase, "one or more ASEAN member nations".
The position Glen and I argued today was that the object phrase should
instead read, "one or more Southeast Asian nations".
As far as the arguments-

ASEAN is best left as the literature standard  rather than the object of fiat.

As means of an overview.  If the advocates on the committee of ASEAN as the
object are right, that it's the definitive term that includes and excludes
what is Southeast Asia, then it's easy to define what is "Southeast Asia" or
"Southeast Asian Nations".  ASEAN defines that.  Clearly, it's the best
literature standard.

We have a couple of arguments.

1. Loss of clear c-plan ground with ASEAN.  There is definitely a potential
for your ASEAN counterplan to be fiating the object of the resolution.  If
the plan is towards all ASEAN member nations on an issue within ASEAN's
sphere of influence than you fiat over the object of the rez and the harm
area with "have ASEAN do the plan" You fiat your solvency too.  Your
counterplan ground is curtailed and becomes abusive.

2.  An issue Gina Lane raised which we think is a good point is the
potential for effectual cases to co-opt your ASEAN c-plan ground.  For
instance, Plan, Have the USFG pressure ASEAN members to change ASEAN policy
in some way.  This would not necessarily be excluded by the topic wording.
(Trust Us!!!)

So, now you say effects T checks-
	a.  No one ever wins effects-T, lets be honest.
	b.  Don't trust the wording to exclude this action - it will all depend on the 
		topic's action verb which will vary.

Now, in terms of the argument against.  We really only here the committee
argue that China should be excluded.  The argument is that "Southeast Asian
Nations" potentially opens the door to affirmatives involving China.  A
consensus wishes this to be excluded.  Our arguments.

a.  Remember, if these people are right, that ASEAN is the definitive
determination of
	what is and isn't Southeast Asia then it becomes the best literature
standard.          Why potentially blur counterplan ground just to exclude
China?

b.  You WILL NOT lose to a China case if you go for T.  This is easy for a
few reasons.
		1.  Problem area we voted for was Southeast Asia with the assumption
that it
		would be the object of the resolution.
		2.  The majority of the literature supports the interpretation that
Southeast Asia is
		10 nations and China ain't one of them.  
		3.  ASEAN defines what southeast asia is!  We looked there first to
define what exactly southeast asia was.  
		4.  The BEST literature is on our side.  The evidence that says that
China is a Southeast Asian nation sucks and will be overwhelmed by
better cards and T
		Standards.

The argument we heard, aside from China,  was that ASEAN member nations is a
more definitive object of fiat.  The only argument we heard against going
the "Southeast Asian nations" route is that it doesn't necessarily exclude
China.

The question posed to the community is, should all the resolutions have the
object as "one or more ASEAN member nations" or should it read "one or more
Southeast Asian nations"?  It's important to note that the committee at this
point is in support of having ALL of the resolutions read, "one or more
ASEAN member nations" as opposed to having a few with each options.  What
does the community prefer?  It is important that you post your feelings on
this issue ASAP to either this account or the lists.  This is a chance for
you to have a direct influence on the framing of the topic.....please
respond!!!!!!!

Eric Slusher and Glen Frappier   ---   SIU


Greg Simerly

earth mail: Greg Simerly, SIU mail code 6605, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605
(618) 453-1896 O
      453-2812 F
      457-2026 H
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page