[eDebate] Topic Formulations - Whats your method?

debate at ou.edu debate
Mon Apr 24 10:10:23 CDT 2006


Too much coffee might be the answer.

> You must not have had your coffee.



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

I am not on the topic committee so it really doesnt matter.  See last years post on how I would construct a topic.

Example -- The USFG should substantially change its foreign policy to China.

or 


The USFG should substantially change its foreign policy to China in one or more of the following areas:

XXXXXX

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

It said "example" remember.


> Go ahead, we are not afraid of answers.

Are you on the committee?

I am not.

jackie


----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu>
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:01 am
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Topic Formulations - Whats your method?

> 
> 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:
> 
> >Hello,
> >
> >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 
> >June.
> >
> >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
> >dogma?
> >
> >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
> >wish)
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Peace
> >
> >Massey
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 





More information about the Mailman mailing list