[eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!

debate at ou.edu debate
Thu Jun 14 10:12:08 CDT 2007


You seem to have the topicality is good down.  Now refer to my argument that there is an impact to being topical, and include 
the reality that resolutions are framed to beneift one stlye/perspective of "policy debate" and the narrowing of aff flexibility 
requires some resistance in the community.  These outweigh your "personal" communication ethics that you think exists.

Why do we make the aff do something shallow and sometimes repugnant if the are topical?  "So the negative can have 
arguments" is the statement in the topic committee.  We are producing some real bright potatos if we make the aff be dumb/
limited so the negative can have some arguments.  How about the affirmative not say something repulsive, then the negative 
make some arguments.  Or is that too complicated and too much to ask?

It is more than just about topicality being good in a perfect world, it's not a perfect world.  The resolutions are tainted with 
competitive and philosophical slants in framing that require refutation.  (this is my pedagogical stance anyway)

I tried the topic committee meeting, and they have their job/philosophical slant locked down.  Even if you show up and 
disagree, you only get lip service, and nothing on the ballot close to what many members of the community would feel creates 
good debate.

So please, be deeper.  We understand you will vote on T, and people  who are borderline should strike you.  But please, deal 
with the issue of flawed topic in your analysis of being topical.  Then discuss and defend "banking education" as good and also 
deal with verbalizing things you disgree with  and how that effects radical politics.



More information about the Mailman mailing list