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

Re: Larson and the action/area dillemna

Josh wrote:
> 
> I agree with most of what Gary argues in his post.  Our only disagreement
> is over the "topics that limit the action = unlimited harm areas" argument
> (sorry about the quatations that was a paraphrase).
> 
> Currently we specify harm areas which only limit the direction of the plan in
> relation to the harm area (it must have an effect on the harm area). This is
> not an exclusive constraint.  As I argued in the post Gary is referring to
> - the harm area is not limited by a harm area topic. The example I gave was
> the environment topic....I claim a decrease in pollution advantage and then
> any other advantage that the plan that decreases pollution, in any way, would
> allow...My argument is that the advantages from the plan are always as
> unlimited as the literature allows regardless of the topic harm area.  I guess
> what I am saying is that predictability does decrease tha multiplier.  The
> way I explained it in the last post was that the initial circel is still
> smaller....In other words, given a action limiting topic you have
> a better chance of having a hit against the plan and harm area topics have no
> more or less chance to limit the advanatages claimed by the plan. Josh
> 
> Joshua B. Hoe
> 
> e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
> all info will be changing soon.

it seems that one of the areas where predictability is at a high point,
may be a severe weakness in some of the considerations you've made
concerning technical language and the discussion ross smith has
contributed concerning limits, predictability, and ground.

the practice of many resolutions to specify in detail after detail the
nature of the action and its implications is somewhat at odds with the
practice in the same resolution of providing a very general agent of
change or actor.  regardless of the subject matter it appears that the
same subject of change is provided.  

this seems to be inconsistent with the notion of creating something of a
field specific phrasing of the particular resolutions.  even if the
object of action and the action are constrained by technical terms from
the field literature, the presence of a generic actor prevents the
resolution from forcing the discussion to a particular subject area.

this obviously relates to all three levels of ross smith's post as
well.  the question of limits are that the range of governmental actors
that can be involved in the prescribed action are fairly expansive.  in
addition, the lack of a specific actor, creates some question as to what
the field context for the interpretation of the resolution.  Is the
field context the environmental arena or is the field context the arena
of government or the subject matter of political science.  

in the area of predictability, it is not sufficient to expect that the
discussion will be about the field defined by the topic area and
supposedly suggested in the resolution.  the presence of the generic,
non-field specific agent of change allows the discussion to move to any
aspect of political issues.  the relevance of the majority of the
political capital arguments which come generically year after year is
the generic agent of change that comes knocking along with each topic.

as for the notion of ground, ross smith provides a clarification that
ground alone is not sufficient but "good" ground.  in so many
discussions of ground, it seems that if the negative has "any" ground,
the ground is considered sufficient.  usually it seems, the ground
suggested has little to do with the subject matter of the topic area
field, but with the generic process of the agent of change.  this is not
necessarily "good" ground because it means that neither side in most
debates are encouraged or forced to discuss questions unique to the
season's subject matter.

it seems that two possibilities are obviously apparent to address these
concerns if there is any agreement with them.  the first, would be to
provide resolutions without specific agents.  these would be something
of the number six template in Gary Larson's system.  these would also be
consistent with the examples on the discrimination topic area presented
by Dallas Perkins.

the second way of addressing the question is to provide much more
specific agents of change consistent with the field context in the
remainder of the resolution.  in essence, this is what the treaties
topic area has done.  the joy towards the topic expressed by many seems
to be related to advantages which derive from creating a more limited
and predictable agent of action.  this advantage can be created for
other subject areas if in the crafting of the resolutions, more
consideration is provided to placing limits and predictability on the
agent of action in the proposed resolutions.

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