[eDebate] Re-OPEn THE bebATe abOUT swITch SiDe Debate

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Apr 13 16:34:30 CDT 2006


Wellllll....It can be both a "different pedagogy" argument and an aff flex
argument.  Dont disagree with you at all though,

Josh


On 4/13/06, Kuswa, Kevin <kkuswa at richmond.edu> wrote:
>
> THE CAPITAL LETTERS DO SEEM TO SHOUT!  WHAT IS SWITCH-SIDE DEBATE AND WHEN
> DID THE DEBATE OVER IT STOP?
>
> Wow, capital letters cause flem as well.
>
> Wanted to chime in on one argument--the USFG (Agent-Lock) argument.
>
> Arguing for a non-USFG agent (even possible on a Courts topic, see the
> 91-92 resolution) is not an argument for affirmative flexibility.  It is an
> argument that the norm for affirmative action is presumed to be the same
> body year after year, a body that we really aren't part of, and a body that
> incribes a legislative end-point for change.
>
> Certainly we have seen that the aff does not have to defend a traditional
> notion of the USFG to be successful.  In fact, to shout, AFFIRMATIVE FLEX IS
> INEVITABLE, no matter what the topic.  Creative debaters will go
> affirmative--this ensures flexibility.
>
> So, in a world of inevitable flexibility, the "agent-lock" problem (always
> using the USFG) is more of a pedagogy argument.  What do we all learn and
> teach as the "middle of the road," "the safe bet," "the topical approach,"
> "straight-up debate," every year?  The answer to that question is the reason
> to give a non-USFG agent a shot.
>
> kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060413/36bddd33/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list