[eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a "clean" topic?

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Thu May 24 14:38:37 CDT 2007


I heard this on the g--ddamn Courts topic and now I am hearing it again on this
one. Why are all of you hacks so worried that a school may bust out a new and
creative affirmative on your ass in Quarters at Wake? You seem to want to
resolution to write the exact affirmative plan text. Why not add next to
security guarantees that each guarante must be supported by at least 10,000
u.S. troops to guarantee you your overstretch links. Why not add in, "must be
adopted over the objectionss of House republicans" to make sure you have a
crappy politics link.

If I want to run constructive engagement as sending lollipops to Assad's kids,
you on the negative have literally a thousand ways to beat the shit out of it.

How would I get out of the Golan Heights, etc.? For what it is worth, which is
not squat, since is does not matter what anybody says now, these are the topics
you are stuck with, I would have written the following:

"Resolved: the USFG should constructively engage Iran." or "Resolved: the USFG
should adopt a policy of constructive engagement with Iran."

That's it. I guarantee you there is an entire year of VARSITY, ELITE school
debate in this one simple declarative statement. Entire academic careers of
hundreds of professors have been and are being devoted to this single and
clearly written resolution. At the same time, there is room for the middle and
room for novice and jv debate. There is room for the creative case and room for
a middle of a road case. But, there is also two core areas that everyone knows
they are going to debate: 1) the U.S. has a major foriegn policy shift with one
of the Axis of Evil Countries and 2) it is Iran.

But, that is all water under the bridge now.

And, to answer back some of the shit of, "thats a ME topic, deal with it," I
have two responses:

1) It is easier to deal with 180 consultation c-plans and a million negative
arguments when one country is at issue. Under the current topics, everything I
have listed is multiplied automatically by a factor of at least five, and six
when Israel is added.

2) I did not vote for the ME topic, nor would I have voted for it. Just because
20, yes, I estimate actually only 20, (maybe 30 tops), schools actually voted
for the ME topic area means I have to like it or accept it.









More information about the Mailman mailing list