[eDebate] New Aff - What is?

Harris, Scott L sharris
Wed Mar 7 15:41:57 CST 2007


I disagree completely with Josh's characterization.  Same basic plan
with some wording changes is not new--it is same case area with some
changes to the plan and here is a copy of the plan we read last.  If it
is same plan with new advantages it is not "new" it is same plan with
different advantages.  If its the same case your other team ran it is
not "new" it is the same case our other team ran.  Saying "new" for the
purpose of misleading the other team into not preparing is dishonest and
violates the spirit of disclosure.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Josh Hoe
	Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:32 PM
	To: debate at ou.edu
	Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
	Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff - What is?
	
	
	If you read it and its different from the aff you read before
(new plan, new advantages, new tricks) its new....if its new cards on
the old advantages its probably old,
	 
	Josh
	
	 
	On 3/7/07, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote: 


		So I think this is a problem we run into with such a
small topic.
		
		My big question to everyone, is what is a "new
affirmative" in disclosure? 
		
		I feel like there has been times where we say "new
affirmative" and some believe it might not be.
		
		Visa versa
		
		There is a definately a greay area hear.
		
		Is this a team standard or community standard? 
		
		I will leave the discussion open at this point.
		
		What are some of the norms most people abide by?
		
		Peace
		
		Massey
		
		_______________________________________________
		eDebate mailing list
		eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
		http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
		


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070307/ac1792f9/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list