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

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu May 24 15:49:43 CDT 2007


tom what you are forgetting is that the more the res locks the aff in, the
more grammatical uncomfortability, the more well justified problems like
those articulated by small novice and jv program coaches, the more arguments
there are to get out of the res entirely...as a towson coach im not
complaining too much because i know that our pref sheet wont be too
constrained when we criticize people who follow a bad topic, or the topic in
its entirety...the sad part about this whole process is that you only make
more convoluted debates for the poor folks who choose to follow the topic,
the more you try to engineer to create good debates the more those opposed
to the direction thee topic committe takes are going to sucide bomb it as
scott says...

On 5/24/07, Danielle Verney <daisy_verney at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now your complaints are just getting sloppy.  First of all you are mixing
> up
> criticisms of the topic, the rez, topic writing elegance, and the room the
> topic gives for aff flex.  This constant shifting makes your criticisms
> annoying and unconstructive.
> As to aff room to breathe... No, I am not worried about a creative aff in
> quarters Wake - I am worried about JV/Novice rounds at ADA
> tournaments.  My
> fear about too much aff flex is that the topic allows so many disjointed
> affs and small affs that there is no way to keep up with case negs given a
> small research staff and you have no choice but to rely on Consult CPs,
> Generic Ks, and Generic Politics all year.  I see this as shallow debate,
> and it sucks.  If you run the send lollipops plan - you are right I can
> engage with these generics; woohoo! - but they suck compared to your
> specific lolipops are awesome (which they are) and kids are awesome (also
> true) advantages they suck - and more importantly generics onlys is bad
> education.
> A good rez, for me, has to lock the aff in to the one controversial thing
> -
> but flex as to other things the aff can do.  E.g. sanctions topic - have
> to
> lift all or nearly all  sanctions - but can do a bunch of different things
> under CE.
> Most of these resolutions are not all that aff restrictive, # 3 is, but
> the
> 1 and 4 let you do anything you would do under your "clean" topic as long
> as
> you include either a security guarantee or an increase in foreign
> assistance.  Foreign assistance is a particularly broad category that
> would
> seem to include almost anything - except diplomatic moves, which you can
> do
> - you just also have to do foreign assistance.  Thus 1 and 4 let you do
> essentially anything non-squirrelly - what is the problem with them?  2
> lets
> you do foreign assistance or security guarantees only - which is still a
> lot
> given the breadth of the term foreign assistance.  Locking the aff into a
> security guarantee or foreign assistance is nothing like locking in troops
> or political opposition.  Your complaint about aff lacking room to breathe
> here is sillier than your complaint about clunky wording.  Seriously what
> is
> your big deal about CE must include security guarantee or foreign
> assistance
> as opposed to unmoddified CE?
> Your solution to how to word a rez so we can have a Golan Heights debate
> is
> to not have it!  Wonderful! I am sure no one wanted to debate the peace
> process when we picked the middle east!  And you eliminated 4 of the 5
> presumptively included countries in the topic paper!  How faithful to your
> criticism that the community should have a clearer idea of the rez from
> that
> paper!  Excellent solution!
> Also you have just traded country flex for mechanism flex (and not much
> mechanism flex) - so you are more restrictive to the aff now than the
> committee.  WTF?  The only benefit to this rez is your much vaunted
> "clarity".  You really think its more important to get the rez down utter
> simplicity than to follow the topic paper and let people who are
> interested
> in other parts of the ME debate them?
> You didn't make it easier on yourself research wise.  The plans on the
> Iran
> topic are going to be subject to the same change the plan mechanism
> slightly
> CPs, the consult CPs, Israel, other relations, generic Ks and other actor
> COs.  You say you only have to deal with 1 country now, but thats true for
> the broader ME topic as well -- you only need answers to the CPs for the
> country your Aff deals with!  You don't need to come up with a million
> different negative strats when you are neg - you can focus on the ones you
> like.
> Finally, while you don't have to like the ME topic - if its the topic you
> don't like then cop to that and stop pretending that the committe is
> ramming
> something down your throat.  We voted on the topic, you lost, blame the
> community's love of Foreign Policy topics, but don't blame the rez process
> (btw of the 70 schools that voted on the topic ME got 31 first ballot
> votes
> - and 43 votes by final round).
> Summary:
> 1. USFG should adopt a policy of CE to Iran which must include SG or an
> increase of FA NOT big difference from USFG should adopt a policy of CE to
> Iran -- so aff is not being unduly restricted!
> 2. No good reason not to include other countires than Iran in a ME topic -
> and even if there was, YES YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT EARLIER
> 3. "Clean" wordings are something of not too much value which you are
> fetishizing for no good reason.
>
> Tom O'Gorman
> tomogorman at gmail.com
>
> >From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under
> >a"clean" topic?
> >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:38:37 -0500
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows
> Live Hotmail.
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070524/953f7904/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list