[eDebate] Highschool topic mandates effects...(no...not really...it doesnt)
Sat Jul 8 13:53:43 CDT 2006
This person's post makes no sense to me, a couple
I will admit my lack of skills as an editor are far
outweighed by this person, however i am going to
assert that i understand more about how debate works
than she does.
1. she asserts that there are differing
interpretations, not that the interpretation of ?that
increases? is NOT grammatical. This seems to beg the
question of ground and limits, as she does not make an
argument about the resolution MANDATING effects. Just
that grammar isn?t an offensive argument for the
2. Confusion with intention of the government and
intention of the debaters. When this email was written
to say that you COULD not negate the DADT aff in the
manner that they didn?t INTEND to cause an increase
although may be true, this person is confusing the
intention of the aff with the mandates of the aff. She
seems to think you determine topicality by solvency,
(insert mixing burdens bad here). Presuming the only
way to negate the resolution was to prove that the aff
DIDN?T result in an increase, (the explination of how
you negate a resolution in the original email was
poor) then sure, if the aff wins solvency, then theyre
topical. DADT clearly could make the military less
appealing to hetero-sexist people and could cause them
to vote with their feet, decreasing the number of
people serving. This person would also probably think
that DADT would be topical if the resolution said
decrease and they read solvency evidence that said it
would cause soldiers to quit.
3. A definition of an infininte proves that affs that
merely intend to result in an increase are different
than ones that actively increase.
Hughes, Projects and Development Director of the
Digital Education Network., 2k1 (Anthony,
The Infinitive Function
The most common use of the infinitive are:
To indicate the purpose or intention of an action
(where the ?to? has the same meaning as ?in order to?
or ?so as to?):
And, I think this card is better for the present
action argument than the previous one because it
doesnt have the word CAUSING in it and merely says the
policy must increase in the present.
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language:
4th Edition 2k
Present Participle: A participle expressing present
action, in English formed by the infinite plus ? ing
and used to express present action in relation to the
time indicated by the finite verb in its clause, to
form progressive tenses with the auxiliary be, and to
function as a verbal adjective.
Although the POLICY make be presently being enforced
and may be active, it doesn?t actively increase. It
merely actively allows gay people to say they are gay.
Shes basing her argument on the assumption that the
aff has some enforcement mechanism that is promoting
more service, which im not sure what that ?enforceable
action? would be in the context of dadt.
Be skeptical of those who don?t know how debate
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Mailman