[eDebate] crab and lobster bisque with fennel and leeks or how ilearned that switch side debate is barely so.
Wed Jul 18 15:28:45 CDT 2007
We need to expand this coalition. One of the strongest objections that Jackie has made has been that the resolution forces people to argue against their principles. All of the resolutions below (except the labor one) will do that as well for our misguided friends on the right. I argue for a simple and bidirectional resolution. The community survived the small amount of bidirectionality that was produced by the Casey element of this year's resolution, and it can survive more.
Indeed, I offer as an example the following resolution (bearing in mind that we just debated the subject matter and that there still may be issues regarding people's personal lives; I don't want to debate that now. I'm just saying I wouldn't necessarily endorse this particular resolution):
R: The USFG should substantially change its regulation with respect to reproductive rights.
This allows affirmatives to eliminate regulation, or to ban birth control, or virtually any substantial change in between. Everyone should be able to find an aff they can run. As far as neg is concerned:
A left-leaning team can defend reproductive rights against right affirmatives, and can kritik the involvement of the USFG at all vs. left affirmatives.
A right-leaning team can defend restrictions on reproductive rights vs. left affirmatives, and can run federalism/states CP vs. right affirmatives.
These are just examples. Bidirectionality ensures that we don't end up with some group of people who won't want to be affirmative ever.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ellis<mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com>
To: EDEBATE<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: [eDebate] crab and lobster bisque with fennel and leeks or how ilearned that switch side debate is barely so.
So on the first episode of hells kitchen that showed this week, the final challenge in one competition came down to a lobster bisque showdown...both sides had a bisque, the red team chef didnt know a ton about bisque but she knew what made a good soup, the blue team chef is a fish expert and he made an extrordinarily fancy bisque with techincaly proficient but specilized flavors. Red team wins. Chef does like technical cheffery, he likes food and rich flavor.
The topics upon which the majority of switch side theory was based upon are different than the topics now.It seems like root branch topics have become the norm and replaced more mono directed topics... But we still develop the same theory...yet the topics seem at odds with switch side theory given todays resolutions, and in many ways swicth side comes to mean you must defend the state, you must defend supreme court action, you must constructivly engage, but very little beyond that. The branches are an innovation that prevents people from having to do much switch siding. Say for example i really do not belive in school desgregation, under current topics i can choose an aff i like better and escape the need for switching sides. Say i dont think palestine should exist, i dont have to defend interaction with it on the aff...some defenders of these topics may say, well the question is "should we construcivly engage" or "should the supreme court overturn stuff" and that the branches are not important, but if thats the case it feeds my argument that switch side as we currently define it builds in a ton of ways to not switch sides, and to skirt the controversey.
Technical stuff that some people like are ways to skirt having to switch sides, you get a built in sstrat for each area, and dont have to really press those argumenst through the switch side process but with one of them on the aff....
thought 4...its not that there is no side switching its that the theory and the practice differ and balancing ground is just another word for not engaging the controversy....in a truly switch side manor.
though 5...in theory debating bot sides of prison reform would be great, current topic simply dont make that as much of a necisity as topics such as
RESOLVED: "That the federal government should implement a program which guarantees employment opportunities for all United States citizens in the labor force."
RESOLVED: "That the further development of nuclear weapons should be prohibited by international agreement."
RESOLVED: "That the requirement of membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment should be illegal."
RESOLVED: "That executive control of United States foreign policy should be significantly curtailed.
RESOLVED:"That all United States military intervention into the internal affairs of any foreign nation or nations in the Western Hemisphere should be prohibited."
RESOLVED: "That the United States should reduce substantially its military commitments to NATO member states.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman