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

No Subject

Re Dan and Zack's resolution

In Dan Zack's analysis, they note that "Strengthen regulation" means
requires an increase in the restrictions of that object.  I disagree--this topic
wording was used on the immigration topic and lead to bidirectional
interpretations including the following:

1. Changing/reworking/adding to the regulations
2. Reducing restrictions because that would "strengthen the regulations"

(See the topic analysis at the end of this message)

I would urge, in the interest of unidirectionality, which Zack and Dan seem
to indicate they favor, to word the topic as:

RESOLVED: that the United States federal government should increase
restrictions of a primary use, development, or export of information
technology.

Jim Hanson
Whitman College

The following is an analysis I did of "strengthen regulation" for the
immigration topic that I hope will show that this wording is indeed
bidirectional:

Strengthen
	The word ?strengthen? requires affirmatives ?to make or become
stronger,? strong being defined as ?3. capable of enduring stress or strain;
4. intense in degree or quality; 5. forceful or persuasive; 6. Extreme;
drastic; 7. Having a specified number of units or members.?(1)..So,
affirmatives can take many actions to ?strengthen? regulation.  These
definitions indicate that affirmatives can provide psychological training for
INS workers (definition 3), qualitatively improve the regulations (e.g.,
improve the clarity of the regulations--definition 4), use more effective
education and training (definition 5), take extreme measures (e.g., shoot
border crossers--definition 6)), or hire a specified number of INS officers
(definition 7).  In addition, controlling INS abuses can be argued as topical
given this definition of strength: ?The power to resist force, strain, or stress;
toughness; solidity.?(2) So, the term ?strengthen? seems to give affirmatives
much latitude and negatives little ground to argue a topicality violation.
Regulation
	Regulation is a key and unique term in the topic because it requires
the affirmative to change something that can be different from policies.  As
such, regulation typically refers to ?control? and ?directives? by an
agency.(3) Affirmatives must strengthen the controls and directives of
governmental agencies.  One definition even narrows this down to
Department of State action.(4) Others have, however, noted that
bureaucracies which enact new rules can enact ?laws?/policies.(5) Even
so, I have yet to see a definition which will permit affirmatives the ability to
solely have congress institute brand new policies governing immigration.  
(skip an irrelevant section)
	Regulation implies rules that are not situational dependent--that is,
they cannot be used flexibly to adapt to every situation that an immigration
regulator addresses..(6) They also imply a set of codes controlling
immigration.(7) Rich Edwards, in The Forensic Quarterly, argues that: ?Most
importantly, regulation implies bidirectionality.  Regulation of immigration
might result in increases or decreases in the numbers of immigrants.?(8)
This would mean that affirmatives can address immigration from both sides
and that negatives will need to be ready to debate for and against increases
and decreases in immigration.  This point is further bolstered by the
definition of strengthen which does not state that immigration must be
reduced nor even tightened--the regulation can just be improved.
 Taken from the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 1983. Also from the
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 1983. See BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY, 6th Edition, 1990, p.1286: Regulation is rule or order having
force of law issued by executive authority of government. See David M.
Walker, Professor of Law in the University of Glasgow, THE OXFORD
COMPANION TO LAW, 1980, p. 1053.: More specifically the term
(regulation) is commonly used of subordinate legislation issued by
Departments of State in pursuance of statutory powers. See Allan P.
Sindler, Editor, AMERICAN POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, 1982, p. 82.:
Sometimes the bureaucracy in effect writes its own law, proposing a new
regulation based on its general statutory authority rather than waiting for
Congress to pass a new law See Robert Weissberg, University of Illinois,
UNDERSTANDING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, 1980, p. 395: Emphasis is
on the application of predetermined, publicly known rules and regulations;
making up new rules as situations arise is not encouraged. See, for
example, the definition in BLACK?S LAW DICTIONARY. in Volume 68, No.
1, 1994, page 33.
(taken from the 1994 West Coast Affirmative Policy Handbook, Immigration
Topic)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page