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

treaties vs. civil rts. vs seasia

i have been watching this thread with some attentiveness, but slusher's 
claims about arguing the merits of civil rights vs. seasia and treaties 
is a concern that needs to be addressed.  i have noticed something that 
has absolutely PISSED ME OFF!!!!  when those who advocate different topic 
area than civil rights they're bashed on the L and deemed a racist. (at this 
point i may be 
rehashing the same stuff as in earlier posts) the merits of debating the 
harms of civil rights are indeed important.  

when are people going to show how civil rights is a better topic--as far 
as predictability of ground and limited plan actions.  please refer to 
josh's post on thursday.  all of the topic areas have important harm 
areas, but what does it matter if they don't provide some form of 
predictable ground.  i think that's why the treaties topic is the 
best--IT PROVIDES FOR FAIR GROUND AND FOCUSES EXACTLY HOW THE AFF. ACTION 
MUST BE DONE.  aside from the harm area of the topic, treaties does this 
the best.  this was josh's point two days ago.  it doesn't a matter what 
the harm area is if its not focused and limited!!!!!

tex williams
asu

On Sat, 3 May 1997 slusher@lexis-nexismail.com wrote:

> Okay-  That's great.  Let's see.  You have no stake so we should just allow you 
> to make unfounded claims about ground and civil rights.  Am I missing something?
> Has this been answered over and over again.  This seems like the latest in a 
> number of tactics to fuck with civil rights.  First attacks involved whines 
> about ground that were soundly defeated in subsequent posts.  Next was the 
> unfounded fear about uncivility in rounds which was also throughouly answered.  
> Now we have another lovely scare tactic that we will split the vote on foreign 
> policy topics.  We'd better reach a consensus about treaties and southeast asia 
> so we can alter the vote outcome and save ourselves from the dread of civil 
> rights.  Great.  I won't hurl racism charges your way....I haven't done that to 
> anyone.  I will hurl attacks that you provided NO, 0, not a bit of rationale 
> about why civil rights is bad for ground.  How about you explain why treaties or 
> southeast asia is BETTER for negative ground than civil rights and maybe I will 
> concern myself with split votes.  Later,
> 
> slusher
> -college.
>
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page