[eDebate] Topic Formulations - Whats your method?

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Mon Apr 24 10:01:13 CDT 2006

You must not have had your coffee.

The question put to you is "how would you go about constructing the topic?"

You've pointed out a few things you wouldn't do. That doesn't make for much 
of a "method."

Go ahead, we are not afraid of answers.

--JP Lacy

At 10:22 AM 4/24/2006, you wrote:

>Here are the people on the topic committee I think.  Sometimes my posts 
>seem more like call-outs than
>discussion starters.  Hopefully, this is an informative discussion starter.
>It might seem like a Supreme Court call for party affiliation, but it is not!
>  Mancuso
>  E. Lee
>  Stables
>  Galloway
>  Steinberg
>  Patrice
>  D. Elliot
>  T. Odonnel
>  M. Gordon
>Inevitably ? The topic committee will meet at the end of May, beginning of 
>We will have a topic area.  These people will have to create a topic.
>Now my question is how will these people be approaching the topic 
>formulation process.
>Last year I was told there would be a broad topic on the ballot.  Then 
>after the support for a possible broad
>topic, one of the members dimissed the topic as a bad idea.
>So my question is how do you approach topic construction.
>I know most of you have no reason to respond, and would rather just show 
>up and create a topic without
>people understanding the methods in which you see the process should go down.
>Example #1 --  I assume the topic will say ?USFG should?.   Now,  will 
>what the "USFG should" do -  be binding
>to allow ?negative ground? or will what the ?USFG should? do be open in 
>relation to the topic area.
>Example #2 ? Is negative ground better or more important than affirmative 
>flexibility?  Will the affirmative be
>restricted to specific ?bad? actions so the negative can have an argument? 
>(yes bad is subjective ? that is why
>any restrictor is biased)
>Example #3 ? Can we identify all of the solvency advocates/options within 
>a topic area in the six weeks or four
>days of the topic committee meeting?  Does the wording invite us to 
>explore, or restrict us with definitional
>I really have no clue on how some of the people on the committee approach 
>these issues.  I have never even
>met some of these people.
>I am not really up for debate on how you see it, I just want to know how 
>you see it, so when the topic committee
>meeting happens, there will be more familiarity with the process you will 
>be utilizing. (backchannel me if you
>I promise I will not respond to indict your method, but would find it very 
>helpful to have an idea of what lens you
>see topic construction through.
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list