[eDebate] neal! i said NEAL, punk!

travis neal travisneal
Sun Sep 29 19:41:08 CDT 2002

Funny subject line, I had never heard that one before.  :t  Despite my 
sarcasm, I did find  it humorous.

I fail to see why these pre-round agreements can't constitute the discussion 
the debaters want to engage in but are prohibited by ballots endorsement of 
the resolution.  This activity is only a small forum relative to all the 
other forums exisiting or waiting to be created.  I will admit that when I 
participate in the topic process (whether it be actively or tacitly) I want 
it to be adhered to.  Call me conservative, but I value those facets of it 
Josh illustrated in previous posts (please don't call me conservative, even 
if it is true.)

I do have an issue wiht this pre-round agreement disclosure remedy.  I 
forsee a world where I am in the back of the room and the affirmative team 
runs an affirmative clearly off-topic and the negative argues topicality.  
The affirmative claims they had a pre-round agreement about this 
affirmative.  The negative, obviously disagrees.  What do I do?  Who is 
lieing?  Who is mistaken?  There are so many ways for this pre-round 
agreement of yours to break down in the actual round, that I fear we return 
to the world we have now.  Very similar to the notion of how does one 
enforce treaties.

I am willing to entertain and even vote for some criticisms of topicality, 
despite my wishes that likewise.

Travis Neal
U. North Texas

>From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] neal! i said NEAL, punk!
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:09:47 -0500
>Travis, i'm sure there's more than a few people in this activity who'd find 
>your claim (that nuclear prolieration and targetting of civilian 
>populations are good foreign policy decisions) to be a highly debatable 
>proposition. in fact, i think there's affirmatives out there who'd agree to 
>forgo a reading of their case and simply oppose those views. moreover, i 
>think these pre-round agreements between debaters might network themselves 
>into new topics and new kinds of discussions. so please dismiss the 
>resolution for whatever reactionary reasons you can cook up - all the 
>better a setting for critical debate.     :k
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

More information about the Mailman mailing list