Re: New Topics

[PHARES ROD S <phares@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>]

I would still like to echo some of the earlier discussion to allow for
combination of areas.  I think the 4th option which is "non military"
comes closest.  I dislike forcing a choice between debating human rights,
security assistance, and conditioned trade/aid.

If the topic committee is "pretty committed" to the wordings, I would like
to plead for a different 5th choice.  

Choice #5:  ASEAN should promote substantial reforms amoung its member
nations in one or more of the following areas:  environmental protection,
regional security, trade.

The problems I see so far with this
1) it can be viewed as a statement of fact.  It forces no action by the
affirmative.  I believe ASEANs purpose is to promote regional security.

2) It uses the passive voice.  The affirmative could identify any one of
ASEAN's current promotions in those areas and defend the status quo.
(similar to #1, remember these debates)

3)  Difficult negative ground.  Any plan would first require all ASEAN

members to agree to the action in order for it to be promoted by the
organization.  Good luck finding a disad or solvency arguments when the
topic actor is also the object of action.  One example would have ASEAN
promote a reduction in human rights violations in Burma.  As a member of
ASEAN, Burma would have to agree to this.  The affirmative would fiat
solvency.

4)  Promote is not a strong enough action.  It is not the same as
establishing a program, giving out $$, etc.  It hurts disad ground.  Our
teams will issue declarations and pass out brochures.


My suggestion is to replace #5 with a broad topic like "change foreign
policy."  This has been attacked and defended over the last 24 hours.  The
voting members should be given at least one broader choice than they
currently are.

Rod Phares
University of Kansas

Department of Communication Studies
3090 Wescoe Hall
Lawrence, KS  66045
phares@falcon.cc.ukans.edu

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Here are the topics!!!
• Next by Date: Re: Opportunity cost (shorter response)
• Prev by thread: Topic proposals
• Next by thread: Re: New Topics
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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