Court wording Re: topic choices

[Bob Lechtreck]

>>>>>>>>>>
With all due respect to your regional constraints and your feelings of
negative persecution,
>>>>>>>>>>

First, it is more than just MY regional constraints, there are areas like
ours all over the nation who must ALSO debate the topic.

Additionally, Phi Rho Pi, the junior college nationals (yeah, it ain't the
NDT, but let's try to remember the big tent) has a great many judging
philosophies which say they don't want to hear kritiks or political disads,
and a c/plan just means that the neg agrees with the rez. Why punish these
folks?

Finally, I do not say it is negative persecution, just skewed for the neg if
their best answers are PICs, kritiks, and political disads.

>>>>>>>>>>
the reason the topic ought to be worded to ameliorate a limit on sovereignty
is that such a topic would be UNIQUE.  A review of the literature and news
indicates that the Supreme Court as well as the Republican Congress have
taken decidedly anti-sovereignty stances.  So Bob's suggestion that the
affirmative should decrease sovereignty would make most everything
NON-UNIQUE.
>>>>>>>>>>

GASP!!!!  You mean the neg would have to debate the merits of the individual
plan  and not be able to run a unique political disad?  Sad.......  (tongue
planted firmly in cheek).

However, now that there is a Democratic Congress (at least the Senate), you
may end up debating a non-unique topic if they start increasing Indian
sovereignty. Is that a chance we want to take.

I know some regions and many junior college tournaments aren't the "national
circuit", but these folks are part of the organization and have to debate
the same rez.
If we can't debate a rez where people can win on the neg by saying plan
action would be a bad idea on face, then maybe we shouldn't debate that rez.
There are thousands of others to choose from.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires and damn good debaters"