[eDebate] Topics and thought control.

jmill12 jmill12
Fri Apr 14 01:45:12 CDT 2006


Just a incindiary subject line to get y'all to click on the message.

I was just reading through the list of topics from the NDT 60th anniversary
tourney book and something struck me as rather interesting. Did everyone realize
that the NDT NEVER used the term United States Federal Government (USFG) until
the merger? that's right, the agent of choice was either US or the federal
government or the US Supreme Court or US foreign policy or US law enforcement
agencies.

Oops I was just doublechecking the list and i am wrong United States federal
government (no caps on fg) was used in 84-85 That the United States federal
government should significantly increase exploration and/or development of space
beyond the Earth's mesosphere.

I have some questions for the old timers (i pysched that for once I'm not an old
timer- I debated CEDA resolutions:)) Was it impossible to debate negative before
84-85 and between 85-96? Were the harms of not Using the USFG that Josh Hoe(and
others i don't mean to single out Josh his answer to a jackie post recently
sticks in my mind that is all)suggests present then, or does the emergence of
the critique  mean that the 49 resolutions not using USFG are no longer
applicable examples? I just have had no college experience with topics that were
"policy" topics that didn't use the USFG as the actor. 

An argument can be made that the emergence of USFG EVERY YEAR since the merger
was/is an attempt to keep them crazy CEDA value debaters form running any crazy
possible argument under the sun including those "silly" value arguments. 

I mean no debater who has debated since the merger has even had a chance to
debate anything other than USFG. Something that cannot be said for any debater
who debated the FIRST 50 YEARS of NDT debate.  There has got to be something
more than just co-incidence. I know the history says that NDT would debate the
CEDA topic if it was policy, but didnt CEDA defer or rather include NDT input
because they had the experience crafting policy resolutions. Why then USFG if it
was only used 1 in 50 times? Was that topic the greatest ever? i have no
empirical evidence to prove any conspiracy theory,  well other than 1 out of 50
before and every one since, that something fishy/curious/interesting is going on
with the topic wording.

My intial suggestion is heck lets try a value topic. Debate has changed in the
last 10 years, values are everywhere in debate rounds including outrounds of NDT
and CEDA nats. It ain't your momma's policy debate any more! 

But i understand some of you conservative/change fearing/value hating/dyed in
the wool policy peeps (that's a joke JOKE JOKE) may disagree. So how bout we try
something other than USFG? It will ALWAYS be somebody's senior year, why not
this year?

I would rather wait till we decide a topic area before offering specifics, but
some of Dallas' ideas dont sound terrible. Lets just really use our critical
thinking honed debate minds to consider some alernatives to the way its been for
10 consectutive years . Heck the NDT topics rarely used the same actor in 2
consectutive years before the merger and we got 10 years o' the same. Talk about
conservative group think. damn

on this whole negative ground thing. A quick look at debateresults shows the aff
only won 49.6401% of prelim open rounds. Isn't that to far towards negative
ground? Shouldn't a more accurate percentage be closer to 55 . i mean don't all
of you coaches say lets win 75-80% of affs and half the neg and we'll be were we
want to be. If you spend half your time on your aff and the other half on all
the other affs , shouldn't even average debaters be over 50% on the aff. How
many of you think a 49.6% aff win percentage is acceptable for any of your own
teams? I may have ignored something (i'm sure i have) but 50.36 neg win doesnt
sound right to me. 
I say the FACTS show it is harder to win on the AFF not neg. If your neg ground
logic is true than it is time to Increase Aff ground. Do you really fear Jackie
that much that if you cant run T, OU will roll? Come on He's a Native American
from Oklahoma who roots for the Dallas(tx) Cowboys! :)

All jokes aside, i am very interested in people's thoughts on life before/after
USFG. Seriously 49 out of 60 dindn't use USFG and the one before the last 10 was
USfg. I just don't get any other explanation other than control the k/value
debate. i am open to alternate theories, i just can't see them yet. Help a
brother out, would you?

Gordie Miller
CEDA debater and coach Vermont, South Carolina, Community College of Vermont
Post merger policy coach Vermont, Arkansas St, Cornell, now Rochester.

PS I remember the should we merge debate at the Long Beach Ceda business meeting
when Korcok said we should really think about this and the incredible possilby
harmful effects the merger could have for CEDA debate and then my coach Steve
woods saying we need to avoid "apocalyptic rhetoric". I was toally in favor of
the merger because i hated the idea of not being able to debate the same people
i debated in high school (although I'm sure Ara Lovitt would have crushed me
even worse than he did when we were in HS in cali!) I'm not sure but it seems
Mike had a point. or maybe his way of thinking is what leads us to the same USFG
list style for 10 years in a row. i dont know He may have a better memory of his
position, and i'm not saying undo the merger, i'm saying debate changes and we
need to be willing to change knowing that we can't predict a happy ending for
all. thanks for reading my late night thoughts.





More information about the Mailman mailing list