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

Re: SEA: bad for ground, horrible for small programs

laura does a pretty good job of stating what my points are without 
actually answering them.  She also does a superior job of stating that 
others have refuted my arguments, but doesn't say why their's invalidate 
mine.  that said, i'll respond to her now...


On Tue, 20 May 1997, Laura Heider wrote:

> in his enthusiasm to defend southeast asia as a topic i don't believe tex 
> got at the heart of my post.  a week ago i listed a set of arguments and 
> ground that would be available under the civil rights topic.  this was 
> intended to dispel fears that CR would destroy negative ground.  if tex 
> missed this post i would be happy to post it again.  the basic premise of 
> his argument seems to be "maybe southeast asia has some problems but 
> civil rights isn't any better."  my first post answered this argument by 
> listing the plethora of counterplan strategies available on the CR topic 
> and explaining the quality of case debates that would be possible.

my argument is two-fold--1. laura gives all these reasons why sea is 
bad, but all the other topics could just be bad for the same reasons.  
the problems that she argues are not inherently limited to the sea topic. 
2. trying to dissuade small schools from voting for a topic is ridiculous 
and its only a scare tactic.  the other topics could just as easily be 
potentially large to research.  all of her arguments can be used to 
indict any of the other topics easily and are poor tools to try and 
dissuade someone for voting for se asia.

laura argues...
  > 	i don't believe tex ever refutes my assertion that 
counterplan 
> ground would be exteremely limited, regardless of the harm area selected 
> in SEA debates.  he says that china and japan have specific relations 
> with SEA and could be used to counterplan.  his collapse to this ground 
> proves two points: the first is that the ONLY counterplans available, 
> even according to southeast asia advocates, involve international fiat, 
> and the second is that in a bidirectional topic or one that decreased aid 
> no counterplans at all would be possible.  i also think that the argument 
> he does collapse to is meaningless.  

even if the counterplans are limited, so what.  you don't answer my 
argument that international cp's could just as easily compete with any 
aff. plan.  china, japan, and even apec have as much or more influence in 

se asia than just the united states, which means they could solve just as 
well as the plan...who cares if they are international cp's if they can 
still compete and solve for the aff. harms.  second she argues about 
bidirectionality.  this isn't just limited to the se asia topic--cr even 
falls prey to your criticisms.  the only topic that provides some level 
of directionality is treaties (so those who are so worried about 
ground--save yourself the worry and vote for it).  however, i think that 
many of the "directionality" problems could be solved in the construction 
of the resolution by limiting the plan focus to a specific action 
(including direction) and limiting the harm area.  this is another of my 
points that laura forgets to mention.  i don't see how my argument is 
meaningless considering you omit many of my original points!!!


her second argument is that it hurts small programs:

laura argues:

> 	i don't think tex ever really adresses my argument about why SEA 
> will be bad for small schools.  it is true that small programs are always 
> behind: it is also true that small programs still cut cards.  but, coming 
> from one small program and moving to another one, i can assure you that 
> generic strategies such as counterplans minimize the competetive edge 
> enjoyed by larger schools.  because counterplan ground would be maximized 
> via alternative solvency mechanism counterplans, states counterplans, and 
> other agent counterplans under the CR topic, as i pointed out in my 
> orginal post, it would clearly be more desirable for smaller programs.  
> generic solvency cards on CR would also be far superior: the case debates 
> that relied on these generic cards would be winnable, while generic case 
> debates on SEA would not be.

first, the problem isn't just limited to se asia.  most of the literature 
cited in the se asia topic paper specifically states that it is easily 
accessible to small programs.  i think i've proven that when i listed 
the sources that were used in the topic paper--gov docs, mainstream 
foreign policy journals, and mainstream periodicals.  again i'll ask--why 
does cr uniquely avoid these pitfalls.  matt stated last night that the 
cr topic is legally based, so if you're a small school and don't live 
within driving distance of a law library it sounds like you're sunk.  
my own cynicism proves why this is a poor argument.  schools should not 
be frightened into voting for a topic--any of the topics that are large 
will favor larger squads over smaller schools.  if you're so 
worried--again vote for treaties.  



> 	rob tucker, gordon mitchell and paul derby did a far superior job 
> of answering tex's skepticism about the socially activist aspect of the CR 
> topic than i did in my most recent post.  i believe with all my heart 
> that debating CR will not only educate us about a very important and 
> personal issue, it will assist outreach programs such as tucker's in 
> terms of research, it will force us to learn how to grapple with 
> uncomfortable issues that affect each of us personally, and it will 
> legitamize race and gender as "real" issues to debate, rather than other 
> issues somehow outside the more "relevant" sphere of foreign policy.  
> 


i think others have also answered your claims, but i want to ask a simple 
question--why does your need to debate cr, take precedence over my need 
to learn more about foreign policy and international relations? i'm happy 
for you if you want to take an active role in outreach and learn more 
about civil rights, but don't try to make me feel guilty for not sharing 
your enthusiasim.  

tex williams
asu debate
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page