[eDebate] What does the negative say.

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sun Jan 14 23:08:16 CST 2007

This is the last one for a bit

What does the negative say

So  I have been having a lot of back channel discussions and it seems there
are several types of argument that question what options negatives have in a
world in which the topic is self determined by any team who wants to.

1)      Simple question- what are negs supposed to say and how does it
relate to the rest of the research work we do guided by the topic.

2)      Does t Exist in your world

3)      What if the aff chooses an undebatable topic

And similarly

4)      Won't everybody go around affirming some small resolution that they
win every time

5)      And why cant you just debate the topic the community chooses

1)The first part of this first.

What are negs supposed to say.

Lets start at the beginning.

   1. It is good to work through the system the community sets up for
   picking a topic.
   2. The current resolution is good for debate
   3. (and because offense is a good part of a negative strategy) the
   self determined resolution is bad (not the concept the particular one)

a)      it is not balanced

b)      it does not have a literature base

c)      its ideological goals are objectionable

d)      it does not have topic papers

e)      no one voted on it

f)        it is not practically geared toward real world change.

     4) Perhaps you could also establish competition, for example the
current resolutional structure and resolution better accesses debate about
abortion, your alternative excludes that.

These are examples of framework arguments that defend the status quo. These
are arguments that negatives always have access to. If you don't believe
that people should get to self determine their own resolution and that the
chosen resolution should be the political center of the communities
discussion, then defend that idea. This may not be tied to your research
about the law but you must think there are reasons it is good to affirm the
resolution so explain them.

If you choose to operate within the framework of the alt res you can

1)      Run T against the aff on their res. Fight for the definitional
control and frame the debate in the way you think fair.

2)      Run Disads- Cut a prison abolition link to your econ disad, tweak
your impacts to turn the case, frame the debate the way you want and justify

3)      Run a PIC- exclude non violent offenders run fear of crime as a net
benefit .

4)      Run k's ? links of omission become links of commison when someone
constructs something new while excluding perspectives. A 1ac that advocates
Morrison that diesnt include a discussion of women of color mind be
committing some things but a new political frame work that dos that is a lot

5)      Make case arguments.

All of these are new ground that you get access to in the self determination
framework. Without concrete advocacies much of this ground is not available
and is more easily shifted or never granted all together.

You also could have methodological criticism of the strategy, you could
initiate a root cause criticism, or you could justify why it is that all of
the discourse in the community geared toward material political change is
geared through the mechanisms of the law, or you could say politics are

NOW THE SECOND PART- "there is always ground but what is the ground we get
under the law research we have been doing.

1)      The argument is that directing the research energy of the entire
community entirely through the law is bad, time you spend not doing the work
of the law is material change made by the framework team, minuscule yes, but
diverting your attention from the narrow focus on the micro politics of the
law is a degree of solvency. This is the process of cannon reframing, there
are tradeoffs and I have no problem saying its ok if you want to research
the law but you should have to research other things as well. Is that harsh?
Any harsher than the topic committee deciding that we needed to debate the

2)      Again ill say this. If you are justifying an ideology that says
every debate should channel its politics through the mechanisms of the law
then you should justify it in the debate. The legal research you have done
should prepare you to defend this position.

3)      How does the legal research you do prepare you for people who don't
affirm in the conventional sense now? This is the problem with these
arguments. The world where you can only prepare within the topic doesn't
exist. It hasn't for a long time, it's a utopian fantasy with no method for
achieving the world it says necessary. The traditional debate good framework
debaters, litterly have no praxis
to achieve their vison of the community and thus have no way of keeping the
dissolution of the legitimacy of the social structure from fraying at the
margins, as they claim. This means the we don't have to affirm your res
debaters control the uniqueness on the predictability disad and that the
only risk is for a turn based on self determined resolutions. Traditional
debaters are left in this case with a non unique methodology k that impacts
in more of the same bad stuff in the squo (you justify a further destruction
of predictability).


Yes, and perhaps other methods of testing whether advocacies fall under the
selected resolution can be developed. But t debates at least with my res's
are more likely to be about the ability to define broad terms, prisons for

3)What if the aff chooses an undeabateable topic. Won't everybody go around
affirming some small resolution that they win every time

That seems to be a solvency deficit for the aff right? Debaters should be
able to debate about what makes a good topic for the community. If you abide
by the legal topic you should have reasons why it is good. Justify what you
do, explain why you would or wouldn't like a particular topic. Explain the
difference between debating that topic if it where the official topic  and
having to prep for it as a self determined topic. Develop a set of standards
for what you think makes a good topic and debate it out

4)      why cant you just debate what the community chooses.

Simply put affirmative should not be forced to do ideological  work for an
ideology they don't  support in order to debate. Currently the topic
committee gears the community toward certain political ideologies, if you
are doing ideological work you and not the topic committee should get to
decide to what ends you do that work.

 Finally, you dont really want me to choose what your negative ground is,
pick a point of intersection clash departure or non clash even and go with
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070115/491363c8/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list