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

Re: The Farce that rolled

Josh is absolutely right in his post below.  As far as I can tell, 
every blooming pro-CR topic poster has essentially the same political 
view toward the topic:  affirmation of this topic will "enable" us 
somehow to have a "real world" impact on discrimination.  While I 
agree with that political view (that we should end discrimination), 
I'd sure hate to coach or debate negative on it.

Terry West
Southern Utah

> Date sent:      Tue, 20 May 1997 12:45:06 -0700 (MST)
> Send reply to:  IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
> From:           Josh <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
> To:             Issues concerning CEDA Debate  <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject:        The Farce that rolled
> Originally to:  ceda-l@CORNELL.EDU

> Those that have argued in favor of the civil rights topic have used the
> potential weaknesses of the topic to beat back opposition to the topic from the
> very beginning.  In fact, it is precisely the cliams like:
> 
> It helps us in the real world raise money
> It is a great chance for us to advocate something that matters
> 
> that prove that a unique moralizing element exists in this topic discussion.
> 
> Does US foreign policy toward SEAsian countries not effect real people?
> Does our responses to domestic terrorism not also involve 'real world'
>   advocacy skill?
> Does US support and ratification of the biodiversity or pending human rights
>   treaties not matter?
> 
> The truth is that all the topics allow us to hone real world advocacy skills
>    and deal with issues important to real people.  Should I use my affiliation
>    with Amnesty International as a justification for the treaties topic????
> 
> I guess what I am saying is that we are not dealing with support for the CR
> topic based on objectivity.  The supporters of this topic are attempting to
> breed support for the topic based on emotional appeals.
> 
> I am sure that people think that I am opposed to CR.  I am not.  I am, however,
> opposed to voting for topics just because the harm area is attractive.  I am
> also opposed to using guilt as a lever to chill free discourse.  The advocates
> of CR cannot have it both ways.  The advocates of CR cannot simultaneously
> claim that debates will not dissolve into ethical name calling (no,your a
> racist....no,your a racist) while they also use appeals to guilt like they
> havein the justifications for the topic.
> 
> There may be times where a topic has more personal impact on the members of the
> community than others would.  Howwever, debate is still a game and a topic
> must also fit well on the game board.  I am unconvinced that the CR topic
> provides predictable ground.  I am unconvinced that the CR topic wordings
> create any meaningful discussion of the issues in the harm area that the
> supporters want to discuss.
> 
> I will say it one more time......Do not vote for an area because you believe
> its a subject you find interesting.  Vote for CR or any topic ONLY when you
> are sure that it will work in the game setting we participate in.  Josh
> 
> Joshua B. Hoe
> 
> 
> e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
> all info will be changing soon.
>
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page