[eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!
debate at ou.edu
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
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