[eDebate] Wording - AT: K Young

[Matt Cormack]

> 
> Mexico is different than China, and McCormack will
> check back the Bear Bladder and Tiger Penis with the
> "substantially change foreign policy" T argument. I
> claim that when we have limited aff cases, people
> resort to generics to be different, because the
> short argument field has already been demined. 
> 
> 
> Me: So let me get this correct: teams with
> credibility on T will keep the whole topic in check?
> I can already think of a dozen or more teams on the
> affirmative that have a long history of running
> squirrel and marginally topical cases that will be
> stoked to beat the "substantially change its foreign
> policy" T. 
\

Kelly brings up an interesting and good point.  I
think I have some authority on this b/c A) Jackie has
deemed me the debater in charge of beating cases on T
and B) I have also be deemed the debater wanting to
run squirrel cases....what does this mean?

Yes, people will run small hot wheels cases and lose
on T.  But those same people will lose when they go
for T against me running my tiger penis case.  Ed Lee
is totally on when he says if we rely on substantial
to limit our topic we will have a topic about what the
word substantial means (worst topic ever).

matt


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs