[eDebate] Question about rules in general

[Greg Thomas]

OK.  I see what you are saying about content vs. conduct, format etc. 
However, I have two points:

1.  My question was not specific to either type.  I am simply curious how 
those who believe that topicality should not automatically be a voter 
because it is a rule feel about the other scenarios I offered.

2.  While eligibility rules are in a seperate section of the ADA rules (and 
maybe all of this is, I may be looking at an older version), Topicality is 
listed under the heading "Rules Governing the Conduct of a Debate" along 
with rules regarding the format (and hence time restraints) of the debate, 
so even under the content vs. other rules analysis, I think the question 
about hour long constructives would still be valid.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sarah Snider" <sarah at dcdebate.org>
To: "Greg Thomas" <gregthomas77 at hotmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Question about rules in general


> The ADA makes a distinction between content rules and other rules.
> Content rules are about what types of arguments can be run i.e. the
> content of the debate.
>
> I think the only rules in  question in this discussion are content
> rules. Other rules about conduct, format etc. are less in question. I
> don't think the scenarios you describe are content issues.
>
> Sj
>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>>
>> I have been watching the discussion over the ADA rules with
> interest, and I have a question.  For those who are not in favor of
> having issues like Topicality be an automatic decision maker for the
> negative simply because it is a rule, would you also be in favor of
> allowing students to give hour long constructive speeches if they were
> to provide a rationale for doing so in their speeches?  Or, what about
> varsity debaters debating in the novice division as long as they
> provided a justification for such action in their speeches?
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>