[eDebate] I love these topics!

J T jtedebate
Thu May 31 09:54:17 CDT 2007

What?  I don't know where exceptionalism or sexism came into my post--and I trust you are not making veilled accusations
  Flexibility--No one said anything about "an overwhelming amount of flexibility"... "overwhelming" is not the same as "more" flexibility...more flexibility than previous years is progress, even if only slightly.
  Now, why are they NECESSARILY bad choices?
  Security Guarantees: "Iran: if you stop aiding Hezbollah and Hamas, we will take military strikes off the table."
  Foreign Assistance:  How about demining assistance to afghanistan (clearly evil)
  Now, across the board, their can be a good arg for quid-pro-quo approaches taint otherwise good efforts, but it has to be made.

debate at ou.edu wrote:
  I think JT is so right

I think I have to add another top 3 

13 - We can learn how sexists those muslims are
12 - if you have 3 choices, then there is an overwhelming amount of flexibility - even its three bad choices 
11 - Exceptionalism is good judge!

----- Original Message -----
From: J T 
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:01 am
Subject: Re: [eDebate] I love these topics!
To: debate at ou.edu, edebate at ndtceda.com

> Happy birthday Blake!
> Jackie Et al, 
> Actually, the resolutions are much broader than people give them 
> credit (although still kinda dookie)---Many wanted more flexibility in 
> terms of aff mechanisms---including yourself---that is, the aff can 
> pick from 3 different actions and every combination of the three---and 
> that third "foreign assistance" thing....that is an entire early '90s 
> CEDA topic by itself...it covers frickin' everything! (yeah, including 
> that awful "D" word)...Unless you believe that foreign assistance in 
> every form is evil or genocidal, I see no reason why this should 
> probably be the area where teams who don't want to be constrained by 
> the topic will reside, comfortably...there will be cases about the 
> arts & cultural exchanges, education, health care---
> As for the wording, the and/or cloud it up (and consequently it is 
> not necessary to have more than one in a list)...and I have some 
> grammar issues---but it is pretty straight forward, yet allows 
> flexibility under a vague term at best "constructive engagement"
> debate at ou.edu wrote:
> I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think 
> i need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people 
> who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog.
> My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic!
> 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality
> 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time!
> 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to....
> 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, 
> pantering the topic from memory..
> 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the 
> west bank
> 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive 
> engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement?
> 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny 
> business and give som AmRams
> 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with 
> non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right?
> 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 words? 
> (guess before you look)
> 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> JT
> Asst. Debate Coach
> Emporia State University
> ---------------------------------Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web 
> links. 


Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/2a773f6b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list