College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 01:33:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Controversy Papers: Due Date and Submission Process  (Read 6353 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2014, 02:52:16 PM »

Mike,

Thanks so much--very helpful information.  Your comments fit what I've learned about this area from diving into the research and talking with Craig Hennigan.  We will definitely be coming back to you if this controversy wins (any chance you could be in Kansas City June 11-13?).

In terms of "internationally recognized," we should be able to limit it to the big 5 (you listed eight) in the literature--the good thing is there is already a list of these rights and it is very well defined.  The debate there is exciting--especially because the US has not gone far enough in making sure these rights are protected.  The other thing I like is that there are limits on these rights--preventing too much expansion and preventing people from creating new rights.  The more expansive list you posted from the ILO I have seen, but seems to be sub-dividing the main categories and something we could work on by adding some modifiers and making sure the focus remained big picture.  I love topics that could be really expansive or too narrow because you know that some good wordings could actually hit the sweet spot (knock on wood).  To me that is better than adding separate pieces to a "mechanism" that does not end up doing what we think it will by the time we really write affirmatives.  Debates over mechanisms always collapse into trying to write in all the aff cases and they just do not turn out like expected.  Voting based on a particular mechanism instead of a controversy seems like a short-sighted path motivated by the illusion of stable ground.  We need to move away from the mechanism obsession and more toward a good controversy with a direction.   It sounds like that is possible with the labor topic and I know the labor area is ripe for debate.  If you have a thought or two about the best middle ground resolution, let us know.  Thanks again.  Kevin
Logged
CHennigan
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2014, 03:24:49 PM »

Sorry Will, I'm in transit to Mackinac and will try to answer you're questions tonight.
Logged
CHennigan
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2014, 12:09:43 AM »

     Thanks for the questions on the labor topic and Kuswa's kind words as well.  Also thanks for the input, Mike, you've brought in aspects of NLRA that I hadn't considered and I appreciate that. 

     Will, I share your concern about ballooning possibilities depending on the wording that we use in the topic.  Where some on the FB group had concerns about the topic being too narrow, I probably sympathize more with possibilities of being too broad under the "labor rights" moniker.  However, I think that the addendum at the end talking about possible lists might be able to rectify these possibilities.  While we did not think a list topic would be very effective for the topic, I think we may have been thinking in the manner of a list of possible groups to organize specifically which did not work well with the way current legislation was written rather than specific rights to be protected.  I think the paper does discuss the latter option as a possibility at one point as well. 

     I think your questions are valid, but may be getting a little ahead of ourselves.  This is my first foray into the process, but we were focusing more on the controversy and whether it was providing enough possibilities for debate through the season, and letting the wording decisions be decided later when we hash out what the resolution statement is actually going to say.  As a result, we provided definitions for "labor rights" as well as "labor union," "Trade union," and "collective bargaining" to name just a few.  With multiple authors, I cannot speak really to the directions everyone else has, because we were a pretty diverse group in how we'd want the topic to look, but we all contributed to the possibilities a labor topic would have. 

     "Labor Rights" under some interpretations of the definition could allow for affirmatives that do not focus on labor unions, I believe this to be true.  My preference would be to have a more narrow interpretation because I think there is plenty of good debates that can be had on the role of labor organizations on their own.  Others may disagree with that, even some of the authors (again, not speaking for them, so they can feel free to chime in).  I do agree with Mike that it would take a very creative and strange interpretation of "labor rights" to say that a pro-right to work aff would be a "protection."  If that is troublesome, then a wording to strengthen or protect "labor unions" would limit that out.  Again though, what we offer in the controversy paper are suggestions, which we can continue to refine and contribute but would likely expect suggestions from the topic committee as well on these subjects.  Now that I look again, even the term "Labor Movement" which I said was broad, still limits out by specifying that the worker actions must be collective. 

If I could make a housekeeping suggestion, any other discussion on the labor issue might be best continued on the Labor Unions Topic Paper thread in this forum, just to stay a little more organized.

EDIT- oh man, so sorry for the late reply.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 12:11:57 AM by CHennigan » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!