[eDebate] RE: Zomp, round two
Wed Apr 6 20:51:53 CDT 2005
One other thing....
On Apr 6, 2005 8:58 PM, James Churchill Thomas <jthomas1 at my.westga.edu> wrote:
> [JT] Non-unique ? traditional debate has been doing this forever. Look
> to the process CP's and alternative systems of government CPs and
> generic DAs and topicality arguments on words like establish or
> substantially that translate easily from one topic to the next. I
> talked about ConCon and NTR literally every high school debate on the
> Education and Privacy topics (at least i think that's what they were, i
> tried to erase those memories.) ConCon and NTR have little-to-nothing
> to do with Education and Privacy. Is the solution to focus on more
> case-specific strategies? Perhaps, which applies equally to the
> fascists learning how to defeat our affirmatives on their own merits
> rather than with the framework crutch.
This is an indictment of bad policy debate, not policy debate as an
activity. The fact that people win lots of debates on terrible
arguments (Lopez, any consult CP, con-con, non-governmental means
governors, etc etc) is an indictment of those arguments, and the
better alternative is not to reject reading plans or being topical,
but to restrict unpredictable affs so schools have time & motivation
to research specific case strategies.
More information about the Mailman