[eDebate] Andy, The issue is not creativity within a topic--but whether you have a burden to affirm the topic

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Wed Jun 27 09:32:25 CDT 2007


I see the resolution as a circle, or a venn diagram, creating a universe of
possible cases to be advocated. I think there is a difference between
attempting to be topical and just chucking out the resolution. The case
examples I gave are, IMO, all topical and I do not even consider them to be
"winking" at the topic.

If reading a poem or doing an Iranian saber dance is your affirmation of the
topic, then fine with me. But I still get to run disads and topicality
violations that stem from a resolution previously agreed to.

Topicality checks, or should check, those affirmatives that stray too far away.
For example, I am still not sure whether CE the Shah of Iran, who has a
government in exile, is topical. That is for the teams to debate out.

You still don't answer the question: Why does the affirmative get to impose its
new resolution on the negative?

Scott


Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:

> indeed, and thats functionaly what "creativity" within the resolution allows
> now or better yet the affs that wink at the resolution...we see the
> resolution as a circle not a statement, we see the resoloution as a
> mirror...metaphor..whatever or the poems that begin construcily engage, im
> enraged, the middle east is not the beast its you and me....all that stuff
> gets let in under creative interpratations of the resolutuon standards and
> its worse because they say they are topical but you know they arent and you
> have no mechanism to check them back against because t has become a malluble
> tool...
>
> On 6/27/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> >
> > Simple: Because it was not agreed to by both teams in advance. If prior to
> > the
> > round, both teams agree. The I am o.k. with that. But for you to
> > unilaterally
> > get to choose the resolution and impose it on the negative, seems
> > "super-abusive" to me.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I think i am arguing for stricter application of it as a concept. I
> > think
> > > ken sherwood is arguing that his students have been put in a box where
> > > creativity is the only way out...why is it ok to assault the topics
> > validity
> > > by hiding in an unforseen corner of it, but not ok to offer another
> > topic
> > > that you will be willing to be bound by.
> > >
> > > On 6/27/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That is why  I bitch and complin so much when poorly worded topics are
> > > > drafted.
> > > > That is why, when I am writing a topic paper on solving global
> > warming,
> > > > alomst
> > > > a year in advance, I am more concerned with topic wording than on
> > finding
> > > > and
> > > > explaining the a problem area.
> > > >
> > > > Two examples; Everyone says, Gee we should debate Mid-East policy.
> > Then
> > > > they
> > > > have two or three days to craft resolutions on one of the most
> > complicated
> > > > topic areas ever. Next year, everyone will, for some reason, say Yeah,
> > > > let's
> > > > debate Relations with South America, but will have the same difficulty
> > > > crafting
> > > > meaningful resolutions in just two days.
> > > >
> > > > Finding cases within a resolution that are "super abusive" is the
> > function
> > > > of a
> > > > poorly worded resolution. But that does not deny the original issue
> > that
> > > > topicality, as a concept, should be a voting issue.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, I would love to debate Resolved: The United States should
> > remove
> > > > all or
> > > > nearly all troops from Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > My argument is that all the aff flex permitted under  current
> > > > resolutions IS
> > > > > the problem, Many of your examples prove my point about arguments
> > that
> > > > > intentionaly skew and muddle research ground being permitted by
> > simply
> > > > > having the aff give a performative nod to the topic, "i at
> > least  have
> > > > an
> > > > > intepration" aff that you either a) could have never guessed or b)
> > sets
> > > > you
> > > > > up to turn all of your opponents args are super abusive. The ones
> > you
> > > > point
> > > > > out distract more i feel from the good debate at the core of the
> > topic
> > > > than
> > > > > simply debating iraq...but i get your argument...
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/27/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to clarify one point Andy brought up. Creativity within a
> > > > chosen
> > > > > > resolution is fine with me. In fifteen years of coaching and
> > judging
> > > > > > debates, I
> > > > > > can literally count on one hand the times I actually voted
> > negative on
> > > > a
> > > > > > topicality violation. In fact, i can only remember voting for T
> > once
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > past ten years. It was an impressive T debate that I still use as
> > an
> > > > > > example to
> > > > > > students. (Emory vs. miami on the issue of whether a carbon tax
> > was a
> > > > > > "regulation")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These Mid-East resolutions, because they are so flawed, make it
> > > > extremely
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > for affirmatives to offer interpretations of the resolutuon that
> > were
> > > > not
> > > > > > intended by the Topic Committee. While I am sure they all want us
> > to
> > > > > > debate the
> > > > > > "Grand Bargain" with Iran, almost literally word for word the
> > terms of
> > > > the
> > > > > > resolution, there is still plenty of room for people to debate
> > > > important
> > > > > > issues--just as important as getting out of Iraq, or whether we
> > should
> > > > > > wipeout
> > > > > > smallpox as a species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One quick example: Some people riduculed my question of whether
> > > > > > governments in
> > > > > > exile would be topical. Well, given that the PLA now has two
> > decidely
> > > > > > distinct
> > > > > > governments, would anybody suggest that a case for constructive
> > > > engagment
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Abbas, the West bank PLA government would not be topical? There is
> > > > PLENTY
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > literature on the subject. And, of course, it turns the hell out
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > > Israel
> > > > > > disads. Alternatively, Jimmy Carter is calling for constructive
> > > > engagement
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the PLA government of Hamas in Gaza. Would that also be topical?
> > So
> > > > now
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > are two topical cases--CE with the "government of the PLA" that
> > are,
> > > > in
> > > > > > fact,
> > > > > > mutually exclusive (I'd love to see the plan versus counter-plan
> > > > debate,
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > takes Fatah, the other takes Hamas for a real throw down).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The government of Syria refuses to recognize that a soveriegn
> > > > government
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > Lebanon exists. Does engagement with the controlling factions of
> > > > Lebanon
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > constitute engagement with the government of Lebanon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is Hamas a "government" because it controls territory in Gaza?
> > They
> > > > did
> > > > > > win the
> > > > > > election by the way.  If so, does Hamas in Lebanon constitute a
> > > > > > "government" of
> > > > > > Lebanon, given that they control certain land areas and political
> > > > > > districts of
> > > > > > southern Lebanon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Notice that the resolutuions to be voted on do not say "national
> > > > > > governments
> > > > > > of..." It just says "government of"..... Does this mean we can
> > work
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Iranian Caspian Sea conservation district to save the sturgeons
> > > > without
> > > > > > necessarily having to engage the National Government being run by
> > > > people
> > > > > > calling for the extermination of Israel?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is just a play on the term "government."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "foriegn aid" and "security guarantees" have huge amoutns of room
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > teams
> > > > > > willing to put it on the line. I would tell you, but I want to
> > have a
> > > > few
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > left to run this Fall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue for me, and I bet for Ken and Jim and others, has NEVER
> > been
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > teams should be able to creatively interpret, or creatively affirm
> > the
> > > > > > resolution. The only only issue is that they actually affirm the
> > the
> > > > > > resolution, either through a plan, or through some other form of
> > > > > > affirmation.
> > > > > > This provides everyone-aff., neg., and the judge, with a clear
> > > > starting
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > for discussion and debate. And, if the affirmative chooses to use
> > > > their
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > affirm something other than the resolution, they should not pick
> > up
> > > > the
> > > > > > ballot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > eDebate mailing list
> > > > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







More information about the Mailman mailing list