[eDebate] answers for jim's 2 questions..

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sat Jun 16 23:03:53 CDT 2007


I think my argument  advances several points

1) It mitigates the importance of the opportunity cost disad you offer....If
there is not that much good to come from defending the mans side on CE then
your argument is true in theory but not in application.

2)It highlights the inadequacies of the current topic process in the process
of acheiveing the goals you articulate, we take "at least not moronic" as
the political power of our topic in order to preseve community consenus
while knowing that the goals could be reched better by other framings. You
may not be making an argument about why these political values of s/s debate
outweigh the community benefits of a common topic, but i think it a
reasonable interpratation to say that aff self determination could be
evaluated based on part of an education standard that basicaly says "does
the resolution offered offer better or worse s/s controversey potential"

3) Why doesnt s/s on us pullout give the neg the ability to defend the squo?
in that debate the lit is probably tilted neg on a topical aff? If not at
least its available?





On 6/16/07, helwich at macalester.edu <helwich at macalester.edu> wrote:
>
> 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).
>
>
> best,
> dch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070617/cf9771ed/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list