[eDebate] Topic Concerns
Fri Jul 21 19:02:44 CDT 2006
You have 2 variables which you assume are independent and static: 1. judges vote on limits more than affirmative flexibility and 2. This resolution is significantly smaller than past resolutions.
But this topic rocks (thanks Manucso) because your independent variables are intertwined. Maybe judges in the past were willing to make those decisions on T because the resolution had 4 areas, 10 countries or some other breadth which you pointed out. A resolution with only 4 actions will probably change judges? calculations as well as the arguments in the debate.
I know I will hear someone in the block say their interpretation is better because it provides more of a limit (4 cases). The 1AR will merely have to stand up and say 4 cases is too few and their interpretation does provide a limit, just a smaller limit. I as the critic will then vote affirmative because on this topic it makes sense to preserve some affirmative flexibility vis a vis the easily predicted affirmatives.
I think a reason this topic won is precisely because we as a community are more willing to engage the very T debate you find foreclosed. In a sense it is precisely this topic that allows us to ?err affirmative? because a larger topic would force more T checks on affirmative actions/advantages.
In short, your argument forgets the adaptive nature of debate. The larger topics you praise are ?shrunk? by Topicality and yet you forget the inverse is also true: a small topic will be augmented by a slackening of Topicality concerns. Give the innovation you praise in your last paragraph some credit, things will work out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman