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

Re: SE Asia and the intentions of the writers.


My point was that SE Asia is not just about nuke war; there are plenty of
other very important _civil rights_ related issues.  For example, see the
entire section on human rights in the original topic paper.

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Michelin Christopher Massey wrote:

> 1.  Yeah, there will be MANY China links in this instance!!!  And, the big
> justification for many in their expressions to debate this topic stem b/c
> the impact comparisons will be HUGE and that nuke war scenarios will be
> flying!!!  That may not have been the original intent of the authors, but
> that doesn't negate the fact that is the reason many, many people like the
> topic area.


And my point again is that there is no reason why fans of the civil rights
topic shouldn't have some interest in SE Asia, because there is ground for
discussion of civil rights in SE Asia.  There is room for discussion of
both!  I am not saying it has to be your favorite topic, but that these
issues need to be considered. 

> 
> 2.  I find it strange that the same concerns about Civil Rights aren't
> being voiced for the SE Asia topic.  For the China topic, just last year
> for HS students, there were HUNDREDS of cases out there.  China is only
> ONE of the countries in SE Asia!  Where is the neg. ground, there?  I
> wonder why (up until now) people haven't talked about the fact that you
> are just multiplying the number of cases that you would like to run by 10
> (or more) if you include the ENTIRE region.  Heck, you can have a case
> where you can boycott Narita Int'l Airport in Japan b/c they are thinking
> about stopping night flights.  You can do so many different things in
> order to make sure that your case is so damn small that there is an
> ability for people to have enough links to the disads.  At least in terms
> of Civil Rights (or even Space, which is a BAD topic, or even the
> treaties, which still will be rather large or even CFR), you have some
> place to start.  With SE Asia, you can run stuff that is so squirrely, the

> number of aff wins can skyrocket!!!  

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!  China, Japan, the Koreas ARE part of the negative
ground!!!!!  They are not usually considered to be part of SE Asia.  And,
if SE Asia were to be the topic for next year, I hope that the resolutions
committee would include the ASEAN countries (just to refresh everyone's
memory):  Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia,
Vietnam, Laos, the Phillipines, and Thailand.  Furthermore, in our topic
paper, we examine ways to limit the resolutions (certainly could be
further limited) to:  human rights, democracy, trade, regional security,
and cultural hegemony.  There are lots of ways the final resolution can be
limited so that the negative has adequate ground.

 > 
> If you think it would be tough to find ev. on the civil rights topic, the
> SE Asia topic would be EVEN worse of a burden.  If there were hundreds of
> cases for China, what about Japan, S. Korea, N. Korea, etc.?  I think that
> this is a large concern that can't be overlooked, esp if you are in favor
> of the neg. research burden.  That would be a tiger whose tail would be
> too enormous to grab a hold to.  I would say at least say that you should
> apply the same concern for Civ. Rights (or any other topic) to this one.
> It's not such a winner when you do...

Please see above answer - lots of negative ground!
The argument on ground is different for Civil Rights (at least from what I
have read) than it is for other topics.  Your argument here is that SE
Asia is such a big topic that the neg can't possibly research everything.
One ground argument for CR is that there isn't any viable ground because
no one wants to defend "racism good."  I don't know if this is true or
not, but this ground argument is different, especially considering the neg
ground of China, India, Japan, etc. on SE Asia.  I think the links to
these positions could be quite good.


Stacey Sowards
UT El Paso
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page