Re: SE Asia Topic Wording Issues

[ross smith <smithr@wfu.edu>]

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Steve Mancuso wrote:

> 
> It is vital to understand the nexus of these two decisions.  One of the
> problems with the NDT Middle East topic was that the topic committee
> made two separate decisions, one regarding the policy area ("increasing
> security assistance"), the other regarding the list of nations
> (excluding Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman etc.).  In both of these
> decisions the committee was conservative.  In my opinion, while each
> decision may have been correct in isolation, the combined result was a
> fairly narrow, sterile topic - relatively devoid of real world examples
> of "good" affirmatives.

In my opinion, the result was not too narrow or sterile. Those many who
lost to or won with new affs on elim day at the NDT that yearare part of
my evidence. The flux in Isreali leadership also kept things moving. But,
then, these things are quite subjective. I just don't want Steve's
opinion to be seen as representative. Maybe it is, maybe not.

Ross Smith
Wake Forest University Debate
910-759-5268
Box 7324 Reynolda Station
Winston-Salem, NC  27109

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: SE Asia Topic Wording Issues
• From: Christopher Skinner <cskinner@richmond.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: China as a plan area in the Southeast Asia resolution
• Next by Date: Re: Topic narrowing
• Prev by thread: Re: SE Asia Topic Wording Issues
• Next by thread: Re: SE Asia Topic Wording Issues
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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