[eDebate] Why does the affirmative get to choose the resolution?

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Fri Jun 22 08:39:17 CDT 2007

I love the examples given: Resolved: Genocide in __________ should be stopped.
Great grounds for a debate. That makes for great debates.

Regardless, my question for the topic anarchists is:

Why does the affirmative get to choose which resolution they get to debate?

Why shouldn't the negative get  either a) just as much right to have input on
the resolution to be debated or b)get to choose the resolution that the
affirmative has to affirm? I don't see "we speak first" as a vald rationale for
giving the affirmative the power to create their own resolution. And, your
affirmative right to autonomy runs smack over my negative's autonomy. So, that
does not seem to cut it either.

What if the negative refuses to accept the terms of the debate, the
affirmative's imposed resolution? Why should the negative lose?

If the negative reads off five alternative resolutions that would be better for
debate/education, and wins one, do they win? Sounds worse than Korcock's
plan-plan idea.

Can the affirmative merely "perm" alternative resolutions presented by the
negative by saying "we can talk about that too"?

If I acccept the affirmative's alternative resolution, can I run a T violation
based on that alt. resolution?

Questions that I think should be answered.


More information about the Mailman mailing list