[eDebate] what does "limit" the topic really mean

[Nicole Colston]

how are you, i am great, hope all is well. . a few thoughts.

1)  I want to preserve competitive space for small teams, duh, but does this 
have to be accomplished by limiting potential cases? Perhaps we should more 
carefully explore ways in which we limit the rez before advocating the 
wording- for example by solvency mechanism, actors, existing policy, 
direction, degree of change?  I agree with jackie's concern with the 
infinite ways these limitations can be ideologically driven and prevent 
certain types of arguments, and stiffle critical thinking and discovery 
through debate.

2) real quick, i liked the analysis that we lose out educationally in 
affirmative case construction with narrow wording.  i argue that we do a 
large disservice to students and the judges listening when we don't allow 
debaters to define the need and origins of change (that predicates case 
construction).  This is a critical skill for real-world advocates and even 
policyMAKERS.  to me, the framing of the need and plan should carry the 
ideological baggage of the debaters/literature, not the resolution.   i 
thank my novice debaters, real-world assocaites, and especially teams like 
louisville for reminding me of the implications (to individual debaters and 
community-wide) that our preferences in topic orientation and assumptions 
concerning mechanism's of solvency.

3) I see some of these harms particularly in the negative rhetoric 
surrounding the false critical vs. policy distinction.  in my observation, 
this distinction has formed a competitive norm of non-engagement of 1AC 
claims based on ideological preference.  a lot of people refer to the way 
that critical teams ignore the social contract of the resolution. on the 
flip-side, critical teams complain that their debates never evolve past 
framework/T.   this probably isn't good for competition, but to me it 
signals a positive challenge to the framework and style of evidenced-based 
am debate.  chill out, my mentors say this is always happening, i think it 
is the way debate "works".

4) fairness isn't always about competition, and neither is debate.  the 
topic is about what we will discuss all year long.  it serves as the map for 
many educators, the subject of many learners, and is extremely relevant to 
the current era.  it is about funding and recruitment.  it is about more 
than creating fairn competition.

5) i am still thinking we should accomodate a flexible notion of change in 
the wording of the resolution.    i think that rejecting the framwework 
becomes less competitvely advantageous or even necessary when the topic 
creates the space for the most folks.  i see the most important areas of 
argumentation for our community lately are in the actor (both necessity of 
US/state action, and the debater as actor) and the action (in round with the 
role of style and mode of delivery, and also the realm of solvency).  i 
still like a list of broad areas for potential change.

so, does what aspects of he topic needs to be sufficiently limited?  how 
much does this really affect our prep/research time or competitive 
advantage?

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/