Fri Jul 21 22:59:39 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).
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
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.
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.
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 may not have
> 10-20 years of debate experience but the 6 I do have taught me one
> thing: when judges are faced with straight up "you should vote this
> way to preserve aff flex." vs. "limits = key to predictable debate
> for the neg" that they will err negative more times than not.>>
> Sounds like you need to pref me then.
> <<Four cases?! FOUR?! >>
> The treaties topic did not have five cases.
> Similarly, this one will not have four.
> Different grounds to base the decision on, different harm areas,
> different interpretations of overrule that don't unlimit the topic
> in a
> way that will scare judges, etc.
> Plus....why is four cases bad again? Because you can "assign three
> people to each of the four and have killer neg files"? Well how
> about I
> assign three people to write four killer affs. TURN - better
> researched, more in depth case debates. Killer.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman