[eDebate] Be Blunt II

debate at ou.edu debate
Wed Jul 18 10:10:13 CDT 2007


So I think Ede has cooked up something good on iron chef.

With due respect.  The people who view debate in a way that attempts to use the resolution to balance neg and aff ground have 
been more organizationally active than those who complain like me.  

I agree that G Stables has done a lot to make the process more visible, but accessible needs to be discussed.

Here is one of my concerns disagreement with the "topic process" as it is, or as i understand it.

First, I dont agree with researching a topic before you decide to debate it.  People say we need solvency advocates, but the 
solution is simple.  If the topic were not so narrow, and did not include such limators, solvency advocates would be more easily 
accessible.  Its like we narrow the rabbit hole so much that we cant squeeze our phat azz out once we shrink it down too much.  
Once again, i think this is rather simple logic.

Second, i dont think constructing a resolution is rocket science, but it seems that is what it has become.  I attended the topic 
meeting, and we could create formulas based on what I observed.  

IE - "If we do that then it would win"
or  "these are identifiable negative ground"  but then after the list is created of identifiable ground on affirmative or negative, 
many in the community would never use those examples. Too many assumptions that can never be answered.  No poll, no 
survey.  This means those assumptions shouldnt be made.  What is negative ground or good negative arguments for one is 
different for another.
IE - "uniqueness to the Isreal disad" -- who cares?  yes some do.  but some dont.  so why is this a factor in deciding what the 
aff has to do.  Its like were kids, and we cant play with one toy unless we have an already matching component in the toy box.  
How about a toy box where we dont know what all is in there, and the debate season gives us time to dig without worrying 
about the other mathcing component before we continue.

Remember this.  When i was a debater, we had less tech abilities, had to photo copy and then type cites or ditto, and we had 
broad resolutions.  Debate was fun and interesting.  and in depth.  

Today, 2007, we have mega speed research abilities, but now we need smaller topics?  shouldnt it work the other way around?

once again

"i must be skeptical of a people who dig up gold in the west only to bury it in the east"
Vine Deloria, Jr



More information about the Mailman mailing list