[eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please...

debate at ou.edu debate
Mon May 14 14:06:01 CDT 2007

Hello Bob,

You are so confused.

UMKC has a huge coaching staff.

We have a huge team  -- 28 plus
not small

> Amongst all his other sarcasm Jackie Massey wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>
>  "small" schools need a narrow topic so they can compete toe to toe 
> with the "big" schools 
> >>>>>>>>>>
> I would think that the proof of this was obvious this year. OU won 
> CEDA Nats and UMKC was in the final round of the NDT. Sure, both might 
> have been even if the topic had been bigger, but still.......

> Coincidental? I think not.
> Sorry, I really enjoyed being able to cut case cards.

Its not about you, its about the debaters.  And what, you brushed up on your mead and khalizad indicts.
Did that much really change?  

I challenge you to chart your success.  Start back in the late 80's, and work yourself up to this point.
(I think  Bakersfield has been involved for a while, i could be confused - i would admit that)

Has your teams been more or less competitive with say, NDT Champions Emory or Harvard.

This topic was as narrow as they get,  how did the true small schools do this year?  The schools that were represented, but 
usually not in the past, also debated differently and have become effective of making debate what they want it to be.

I think narrow resolutions crush small schools that do traditional debate.

You find a card that says X  and the larger schools with many researchers have already found the answers to that card, that 
quote your evidence.  You lose, get their cite, then they out update you on something else.

Dont fool yourself with "case" specific debate, it wil happen with a broader resolution.

This was a great topic area, even though it was somewhat dictated without resistance.  i feel like a butthead, but still didnt like 
the process.

That still does not mean that narrow topics are good.



> Bob Lechtreck
> Bakersfield College

More information about the Mailman mailing list