[eDebate] answers for jim's 2 questions..
helwich at macalester.edu
Sat Jun 16 20:36:02 CDT 2007
Your argument is non-responsive. My claim is that switch-side debating on controversial resolutions that require one side to defend "the man" is good training for participation in macro politics.
Your response that "candidates would be asked about Iraq" only indicates that a better choice for the candidate's practice debates would be:
Resolved: USFG should increase its military presence in Iraq.
Under this scenario, I defend the surge, and the candidate can defend their Iraq policy (almost always pullout).
I imagine that a preferred resolution might be:
Resolved: USFG should get the hell out of Iraq
However, under this resolution, no one would defend current policy. If I were trying to "win" the debate, I would push for immediate withdrawal. This means that the candidates would not practice verbally challenging the arguments of the Bush administration and its ilk.
CE is at least a decent balance because it doesn't force the affirmative to be moronic--they get to be Clintonian internationalists, if they want.
And yes, I would prefer a resolution on Iraq. Unfortunately, I did not have time to write a controversy paper. And Ace's offering of a newspaper aside, no one else did, either (at least as far as I know).
More information about the Mailman