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

Re: ans. to Tex, who answered Laura

Once again I think that the CR group (if there is one I guess) is 
claiming that we have to debate CR in order to be better people.  Why?  
Debating a topic will certainly make one more aware of the importance of 
the problem area but I do not know why it will transform us into better 
people.  Either Matt is saying that we are horrible people to begin with 
and  need to be educated by those dedicated to CR or that we will simply 
learn more abour domestic problems i.e. HUMAN RIGHTS abuses.  Why would 
SE Asia not serve this same function of education.  What about the recent 
stories about the Nike factories?  Are these not an affront to the 
realization of global civil rights abuses.  Sure there will be more 
discussed than this, but it will certainly be a part of many debate 
rounds.  Also, why would education of international problems be so much 
worse than discussion of our own misdeeds.   Advocates could arise from 
this topic as well.  Analee (I know that this a horrible butchering of 
her name and I apologize) went to Mexico after that topic from the 
research that she had found and studied.  Oh but wait, her work does not 
count since she went somewhere else in the world and helped.  

Second, there is an abundance of literature about any of the topics which 
have been proposed.  You just have to go to a library and find it.  If 
you think that CR will get people off of L/N then you are wrong.  Yes 
there law review articles about CR but there are also many about the 
foreign policy sphere.  When we can not find something in the KSU 
library, we get it from KU.  It is one of the best libraries in the world 
and it will be for any topic that is chosen.  Those schools with law 
schools will have it even easier.  Guess that means that we had better 
not vote for it (and CEU) since we do not have a law school and only get 
some of the law reviews.  Being the best means finding the evidence in  
anyway possible and under any topic there will advantages for those who 
go to find it.  For some schools it will be harder than others, but that 
will be the case NO MATTER which topic chosen.  If space is it, you 
betcha that I will be over in Lawrence fighting those Jayhawks for their 
plethora of space journals in their science library.  

Also, why should some schools be punished for being able to find cards 
that others do not have.  That is the name of the game.  We are involved 
in an activity that hinges upon research, and those that have the best 
often do pretty well.  Why is everyone so afraid of debating an 
international topic, it will have domestic implications beyond Clinton if 
that is what is so important.

Finally, to say that schools do not vote for a topic out of self interest 
is just a lie.  When squads vote, they vote for a topic that will 
interest them and be what they perceive as the best for those interests.  
I am voting for an international topic because that is what I like.  Get 
off of the moral high horse.  You are voting for CR for research reasons 
right, hmmmmm.... sounds like a self-serving choice to me.  If it is just 
to educate yourselves, go get some law reviews and start reading because 
when SE Asia/Treaties is chosen, you will be knee-deep in international 
research.  Sorry is I sound a little perturbed, but once again the CR 
do-gooders are trying to distort theirs and others intentions.  I think 
that Tex is at least being open about why he is voting for the topics of 
his choice.  Et tu Matt?  

One more thing, I just wish that we would change the topic process like I 
said in an earlier post like the NDT/NFL do it where the resolutions are 
written along with the topic.  It wouls solve all of this ground guessing.
Any takers on this suggestion?  Hope that it does not get buried in all f 
the CR hoopla.

Later,

Isaac West
Kansas State Debate

On Mon, 19 May 1997, Matt Stannard wrote:

> In his reply to Laura Heider, Tex Williams makes two claims which with I
> take issue:
> 
> 	Tex:
> 	>>>
> > her next arguement is that it is impossible for small schools to stay
> > on 
> > top of the research.  first, this is not a problem unique to just se 
> > asia.  civil rights has the same flaws because it is no more limiting 
> > than se asia.  second, there is no reason why civil rights avoids the 
> > problem.  small schools are always going to be at a disadvantage
> > because 
> > of their team size or lack of library facilities.  if small schools
> > are 
> > truly worried about the amount of research on the topic--vote for 
> > treaties it limits the best.  i still don't think small schools or any
> > 
> > one should be scared to debate se asia--by constructing the
> > resolutions 
> > to limit the aff to a specific action that to solve a specific harm
> > the 
> > problem is then taken care of.  
> 	>>>
> It is wrong to assume (and I don't think Tex has really thought this
> through) that CR and SEA have even remotely similar research convenience
> or accessibility.  A Civil Rights topic would have a strong law review
> base.  SE Asia would rely on the hunt and peck method of finding those
> obscure foreign policy journals only found at some of the huge libraries
> in a handful of states.  There are law libraries in every state, as well
> as on-line access to law reviews.
> 
> I don't think the treaties topic limits debate at all; it seems to me
> that researching each potential treaty area would be like researching
> 40+ different resolutions.  But the real reason CR limits research
> burdens the best is that it is a domestic topic with its focal point in
> a particular area of legal policy.
> 
> 	Tex:
> 	>>>
> > laura's last arguement is that we should all vote for civil rights 
> > because we will become more active and enlightened debaters.  this is
> > the 
> > claim that is always advanced by the cr supporters that i find most 
> > disturbing.  maybe we will all become better people, but why should
> > your 
> > need to discuss the implications of civil rights overwhelm my need to 
> > learn more about treaties or se asia, the international political 
> > process, or international relations in general.  why does your cause
> > take 
> > precedence over my need to learn about other areas.  in the end we all
> > 
> > vote for the topic for purely selfish reasons--that's all it boils
> > down to...
> 	>>>
> When did you become a Nietzschean, Tex?  That is so cynical.  Proponents
> of a CR topic are, in many cases, pushing for the topic because at least
> as they see it, debating civil rights will  make them better advocates
> for positive change in the world.  Go ahead and accuse us of being
> misled, but don't charge us with selfishness.
> 
> matt stannard
> 
>
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page