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

re: Kate's defense of environment topic

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Catherine Elizabeth Shuster wrote:

> "Environmental pollutants" isn't unlimiting, is clearly defined, and is a 
> wording based in the literature. 

Great!  The literature also defines those pollutants as malign.  What case
debate is left?  Malignancy good?


>  2) That the topic will be vulnerable to change from day to day
> > in the public policy arena in ways that will make all disadvantages non-unique
> > and questionably linked 
> That's true on every topic. We argue that to SOLVE this problem for the 
> environment topic, the affirmative should be forced to go in the clearly 
> opposite direction of the SQ- i.e., they should regulate rather than 
> de-regulate. "Change," in the current NSS wordings, get the disads more. 

Nonsense.  What if the Congressional pendulum swings back in Nov. and
democrats begin implementing environmental regs?  I know of at least
threee races where the democratic candidate is focusing on the environment.
At the very least, uniqueness is shot, because of those staff writer fools
who will say "the influx of democrats heralds an increase in attention to
the environment."

On the other hand, I don't think Clinton or Dole or Congress will articulate
a clear National Security Strategy towards Russia.  That's something we
could debate all year.  (Or Asia.  Or US strategic doctrine.  Or US
conventional force posture.  Or Nato.  etc)

> How? There are a finite number of pollutants, and States/Local action 
> plus federal action disads check small affs which do not demand federal 
> action. And, we proposed plurality of regulations on at least two 
> industries to reduce at least two pollutants.

I hope you're not a math major.  The number of cases under your 'limits'
expands as you take combinations [here's the math: assume say 4 choices for
regulations; requiring one choice produces 4 cases (obviously) but 
requiring two produces six ((4 * 3)/2) and this difference increases as
the number of choices increase (as long as there are more than 3)].
Do you really believe the first link answer the aff will make won't be:
"not specific to our two pollutants and two industries"?  Nice 'solution'
to providing neg ground.  Also, you entirely neglect other multiplying
factors, like the number of ways to regulate (ban, charge, clean-up, etc).

Why not just pick a topic area with good arguments on both sides?

zack
Cal Debate
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page