A side note on kritik theory (fwd)

[Megan Aubrey Volpert]

>
>  Stephan points out, nicely I think, that some crazy people (myself included)
> actually LIKE the cp/disad route of debate.  ]


And those of us who don't like to debate that stuff should just tow the line,
eh, darling?
>
>  
> In addition, there seems to be a question of ground that is lost in all of
> this.]


Indeed...and the interp we're talking about ma contribute (at most) three affs
to the pool.  Is this so expansive of the topic that teams can no longer do
enough research to have a decent debate?  That's absurd.

>
>  In any event, how does a team prepare for a debate against an affirmative
> that expansively enlarges the topic size? ]


Put a warrant behind this "expansively enlarges the topic" claim, and we'll
talk.  I don't think they do that.  I think people are having a problem with
the fact that, although it is clearly germane to the topic, is shifts focus
away from traditional readings of the topic.  (Or alternatively, people just
just pissed about the no-plan idea, but that's a conversation for a rainy day)

>
> If it is done in one fashion (e.g. "we" are the USFG) why can it not be done
> in another?]


It can be done in others forms.  My argument is that the forms are limited, and
do not qualify as over-expansion of the topic.

>
>  Why is it that "we believe in our aff, your exclusion is bad, don't vote on
> T" an argument?  I still don't get...]


An understandable mischaracterization.  The argument is that the aff is too
educational about the topic (holistically speaking) to be passed up.  The
exclusion of the argument as a result of some limiting function of a T
violation is not worth the loss of education that results from the aff project.

Do you get it *now*?  :-)

~mv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010221/ab38f90a/attachment.html