[eDebate] Topic Framing methods and vegatable throwers!
debate at ou.edu
Thu May 4 08:56:58 CDT 2006
I am taking vegatables, and the meeting will be simulcast on the web, dont worry mike. I will throw some at the
camera so mike feels included.
Scenario #1 -- When we get a topic area, lets say courts.
Anyone on the committee has to decide what process they will go through to decide effective wordings.
We will have approximately 22 days to research the topic area to decide on possible wordings. Is it good to
have a broad wording within which most of the solvency advocates fall under this umbrella, or should we take
what advocates we can find in 22 days, and create a wording that only includes those advocates we can find.
For those attending the meeting like me, not fooled that I can have input from afar, when I show up with wording
ideas, have I wasted my time because I dont meet the "solvency advocate"/limitation standards they
envisioned. Gordon and I disagree a lot, but I didnt attack him publicly about this, I know I have to find a
compromise. Only by knowing how much we disagree can I figure out where we agree.
Scenario #2 - Overturn specific cases or case areas?
There are some that think we can limit a courts topic to specific cases, while other might think we could overturn
cases in specific areas. There is a huge difference, and it depends on how you view what it means to be
I think my discussion about reopening the debate about debate exemplifies why I think the resolution should be
broad enough to have ample affirmative ground, being predictable, but not static.
But like i said, it is not about me, and we know this. I could post five times a day about my opinion, deal with the
ankle biters, and still when the committee has their way of creating a topic, i have to play by their rules, not
I saw the cheapshot by JP that my arguments are "bad" and I understand that is how he deals with different
perspectives. I say all of your arguments defend the status quo, which I think is not good. (perspective)
Its not about JP or I, and its not about crazy topic wording or Korcok and vegtable throwers. Its about
assumptions we make in the topic wording process that must be revealed to be understood.
Its kinda like the disclosure issue in debate. If one group does not disclose, and they can prepare attacking the
other view, then it is it fair to those whom disclosed?
When a topic committee member gets scared the topic they wanted to win might not win, and publicly objects to
a topic they crated based upon a spoof by the committee they were a part of seems odd to me. Seems like
either there is no method and the loudest voice wins, or there is a method, and being able to disqualify a topic
based on the process seems rather convenient.
There, now you have something to work with.
Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should reverse its decision based upon one of the cases
currently on the docket.
Resolved: The USFG should reverse a United States Supreme Court decision in one of the following areas:
Environment, civil liberties, copyright and seperation of powers.
These are only examples, and did not involve an extensive amount of thought, but examples.
More information about the Mailman