[eDebate] Topicality and rules

[Greg Thomas]

It amazes me that you make so much sense adn at the same time I still just 
don't agree.

Ok.  1st off, I agree it should not be difficult to explain why T is 
important, and I agree that every novice should learn this rationale and how 
to argue it.

2nd, I understand what you are saying about tournament administration. 
However, I don't think its that clear.  Those other rules (like time limits) 
are there, as you state, so the tournament administration can take place. 
If someone where to somply make up their own time limits (other than those 
agreed upon) then it would most definitely screw up everyone elses 
tournament experience.  But, thats kind of my point.  Everyone agrees (at 
ADA tournaments) to debate the topic.  That agreement is sometimes obvious 
(ex: at this tournament we will debate the following topic), sometimes less 
obvious (ex: this tournament will be held following ADA rules <which state 
that a certain topic will be debated>), but either way the agreement to 
debate the topic is present in every ADA tournaments registration materials. 
Therefore, I don't see how debating something outside of the topic after 
agreeing in contract to debate the topic can be any less inappropriate than 
agreeing to follow time limits and not doing it (or agreeing to pay your 
fees and then stopping payment on your check after you get in the first 
round).  In other words, I guess what I am trying to say is that if I were 
to curse at or sexually harass a competitor, I would be punished because I 
agreed not to do so.  No one would sit around and justify to me why I was 
being punished, they would simply point to the invitation and/or 
registration and say "you agreed not to do this, and you violated that 
rule."

3rd, you make the point that no aff is 100% untopical.  They shouldn't have 
to be.  The rule (which like I mentioned before everyone agrees to follow) 
doesn't say that I will debate at least part of the topic, it just says the 
topic.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jason russell" <jasonlrussell at excite.com>
To: <gregthomas77 at hotmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Topicality and rules


>
> I don't think you're being hard to get along with at all. These are 
> legitimate questions worth answering.
>
> I think that the difference between T and other "rule" like time limits 
> and someone technically being aff and neg and stuff like that is that they 
> are necessary for tournament administration. T isn't. A non-topical aff 
> winning doesn't throw the tournament off for hours or screw up ballot 
> entries.
>
> And, like I've said, if you look at T the way I've described it then it is 
> literally impossible to think of it as a "rule" like the time limits or 
> anything. It is a matter of interpretation. No aff is 100% non-topical.
>
> Every novice learns T. This isn't really even a matter of adding something 
> to the plates of already overburdened students or teachers. The only 
> difference is teaching debaters the REAL reason T is important as opposed 
> to giving them a list of random reasons T is a voter. Ground. 
> Jurisdiction. Tradition. What? The depths to which most of us believe T 
> ought to be a voter mean that this job shouldn't really be that tough. I 
> mean, either it's obvious or it isn't, right?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>