[eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a"clean" topic?
Thu May 24 16:28:09 CDT 2007
Andy, I guess we have to disagree. I only know my own little ADA world, but
at Navy we are a pretty small research school with a jv/novice focus (some
few mids with debate experience who have intense time commitments, my wife
as the 1 full time coach on top of teaching classes, me for free when I can
on top of my real job, and Lt. Sullivan when he can, for free, on top of his
other responsibilities) and we like these topics. The other people who do
policy in ADA land that talk to me like these topics. Everyone policy
person I know thinks sanctions and treaties rocked on toast.
I agree there has to be some balance between aff lock in and aff flex, but I
don't see how y'all aren't finding it with this list. Most of these topics
only require you to include security guarantees or foreign assistance --
thats a lot of room.
As to elegant writting - I think its overrated. You can simplify when
explaining to people who would appreciate it, and technical wording prevents
some untopical affs and some silly T debates. I don't see it seriously
The wording certainly doesn't make it harder for us to debate the topic. In
my admittedly limited ADA land experience I don't know people who are
leaping to support untopical affs because of it. And I don't really know
how people as divided as you and I are going to agree on fair limits when I
like the treaties topic - and Towson was getting rid of prisons on the
overrule topic. Finally, I just don't believe that if we changed the
wording to the simpler unmodified USFG should CE X list that Towson and
others like it wouldn't continue to be untopical/find creative
interpretations of the topic, so I'd rather keep good limits so that those
of us who do debate more traditional policy can have case debates.
tomogorman at gmail.com
>From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
>To: "Danielle Verney" <daisy_verney at hotmail.com>
>CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath
>under a"clean" topic?
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:49:43 -0400
>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
>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
>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
More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.
More information about the Mailman