[eDebate] Farra (2)

James Churchill Thomas jthomas1
Fri Jul 21 23:42:31 CDT 2006

<<1) The treaties topic did not have 5 cases...you're right it only had
four because one was actually done by the end of the year. Even so -
my simple survey of the past 5 or so list topics seems to indicate
that those topics had more variation and potential flexibility than
this one (or at least a great number of affs).>>

If memory serves Treaties had way more than either 4 or 5 cases. 
Critical / straight-up versions of each treaty, different 
implementation mechanisms, different advantages that got broken 
throughout the year, + the stupid stuff that the crazy teams do. 
Considering I was doing a lot of the latter, maybe I was out of it when 
it comes to the former. But I don't think so.......?

And I'm still not understanding why the particular phrasing of this 
topic precludes aff flexibility. Did I just miss this argument? 

<<2) I hope you're right about different grounds, different harm areas,
different interpretations of overrule, etc. I hope Travis is right
about the community's innovation. That was the point of my post - to
encourage people to remember that we should still prioritize
affirmative flexibility (at least higher than we have in the past).
You're acting like I'm making some totally outrageous comment when
I'm pointing out a reality that a good chunk of the community feels
is important.>>

Word. It's all love. Travis and I are always right by the way.

<<3) Having only four cases is bad because a) it means we hear the same
debates over and over again, b) the affirmative loses more when they
don't have a decent capability to innovate later in the season
because the negative starts to master how to beat the same affs over
and over again, and c) because the reality is that there is a limited
research base when you are looking for solvency advocates - this
doesn't help against teams with a formidable negative arsenal.>>

I think (a) is non-unique, see: every debate ever
Not sure why the topic lacks innovation potential as per (b)
(c) there is? I know I'm not grounded very much in reality these days, 
but invoking the phrase "the reality is" just doesn't really make me 
understand why what you're saying is true. Are you saying this topic 
lacks a sufficient number of solvency advocates? Are you saying that in 
general they don't show up that much? What's going on exactly?

<<4) A2: Your "Turn" - GOOD solvency advocates are not as easy to find
as you're making it out to be - even 10 coaches working on a
particular aff won't change the fact that an aff is unsustainable and
that every legitimate add-on has been written and exhausted. They are
court decisions not nebulous public policy propositions.>>

Affs are unsustainable? Every legitimate add-on will be "exhausted"? 
(Remember how long the actual Casey decision is)

I just don't understand why any of these out-of-the-blue claims are 
true. Does the neg seriously always win out in good case debates that 
get played out over a long period of time? Have I been out of real 
debate for that long?

<<Not all of us have the talent to defend "C/I - Debate about debate,"
or "C/I - Whoever wins at Mario Kart on Super Nintendo is topical.">>

I honestly and seriously do appreciate the fact that someone referred 
to my debate career without using the word "bag"


More information about the Mailman mailing list