[eDebate] Topic Framing methods and vegatable throwers!
Thu May 4 10:19:00 CDT 2006
>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)
The status quo could use improvement (as would *anyone* invested in the
The question that puts things in perspective is "How much change do we
need?" I completely agree with your goal that "the resolution should be
broad enough to have ample affirmative ground, being predictable, but not
Which raises questions of "How much ground, how predictable, and, how
static?" If the resolution is worded too broadly (which I think your off
the cuff examples are, and I thought your 'change foreign policy toward the
PRC' topic was; negatives will be forced into the worst of predictable
static generics. Your responses to this argument last year were....bad. One
perspective announced by you was "we've already got the negative
researched...") If this were a blog, I could create an insta-poll about the
Mexico topic. I think I'd win by an avalanche that "It was far, far worse
than having my fingernails pulled out one by one by the Michigan State squad."
>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
This is why I keep asking you what assumptions you think we should make in
the wording process. Your response has *still* been largely silent.
"Keep it simple" makes sense to me if it can meet your goals as well as the
goals of all those involved in writing resolutions by committee.
I'd like to see options on the ballot that give the aff the limited "good"
ground (the subjective 'persuasive side' of the literature,) but not much
wiggle room at all as far as the plan mechanism goes or the advantage areas
they wind up stuck defending.
The era of the 'ideologically correct' generic negative should end. For too
many years (including 'Federal Control,') we've given the negative at least
the best side of the debate.
True, many affs were correct on all but the 'debate side' of the topic.
True, many affs could scrape their way through or survive by value of
surprise. But on the whole, I think we've overestimated the value of being
aff and the power of speaking last. Late elim round statistics from this
year may state the opposite, but in my mind, that is a function of the
unpredictable subject matter of available case advantages and unstable plan
I can hear it now: "Nice platitude JP."
Like Jakie says "We will have approximately 22 days to research the topic
area to decide on possible wordings."
Can we balance the goals Jackie & I have articulated in that time? I hope,
which is why I'm glad I'm not on the topic committee. In all honesty, y'all
work incredibly hard for zero renumeration. So thanks in advance. I'll help
as much as I can.
lacyjp at wfu.edu
More information about the Mailman