[eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.

jacob thompson jakethompsondebate
Fri Sep 15 14:39:39 CDT 2006


As someone who scott applauds for "working extremely hard to put together a 
caselist," I'd like to say that i WISH there were only 4 cases on this 
topic.  Unfortunately, based on my preliminary data, the community seems to 
have interpreted the topic differently.  In addition, it's my guess that the 
majority of teams attending our tournament will be glad to see the UNI 
caselist.

Even if scott thinks only 4 cases are topical, people are still going to run 
others...

And then there is the added benefit of the negative "casebook" disclosure 
that we'll be doing as well.

Sorry that I don't have more time to reply, but I have to get back to 
putting together the caselist.

Jake Thompson
UNI

p.s. I'd seriously like to give public (edebate) thank the UNI students who 
are helping with our caselist... Michael, Kris, Hannah, Jesse, Ian, and 
Brady (and others)--keep up the good work.  I appreciate everything that 
you're all doing.




>From: Jon Williamson <hella_legit at yahoo.com>
>To: scottelliott at grandecom.net, edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Only 4 affirmative cases? There are at the very least
>4 ways to run Casey. . .
>
>--- scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:
>
> > I support case lists on most topics. I applaud those
> > who work extremely hard to
> > put together quality lists. But on a topic that
> > virtually mandates only four
> > affirmative cases, are caselist really necessary?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate






More information about the Mailman mailing list