[eDebate] LARSONS MISPRESPRESENTATIONS- NOT TRUE!
debate at ou.edu
Thu Apr 13 11:57:44 CDT 2006
I want to say that Mr. Larson misprepresents my argument and did not read thoroughly.
He reads indicts of Makaus conception of debate, not my specific argument.
I said on the aff you need space for conviction, on the negative you get all of the benefits of switch side debate
unless you run topicality or EO counterplan etc. ON THE NEGATIVE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THERE IS STILL A TOURNAMENT A TOPIC AND COMPETITIVE DEBATE. JUDGES STILL
ASSIGNS WINS - SPEAKER POINTS - RANKINGS - and Larson puts them in the computer. (or Tuna also)
"Given the ethos at OU" -- not sure what those are, except people know there is a slim chance we will run
Topicality. The only team Gary knows of (conor and blake) might, but most others want. OUR ETHOS, IF YOU
SPEAK FOR NINE MINUTES, WE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY. HOW IS THAT ELIMINATING TOURNAMENT
No you do not need genuine advocates, you just need a resolution that allows ample mauvering space while
on the affirmative to practice those skills of conviction while possibly arguing against (while always
researching) the things in which you might agree on the negative.
SPACE FOR CHANGE ON THE AFFIRMATIVE DOES NOT MEAN A DEATH TO TOURNAMENT DEBATE.
More information about the Mailman