[eDebate] If you think Consult is bad...

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Thu Oct 4 17:51:34 CDT 2007


I wish somebody would run consultation c-plans. I just got back from a region in
which the judges refused to pull the trigger on inherency, even though we read
ten cards from THAT WEEK saying the affirmative plan had been enacted already.
"Stock issues like inherency are 1970's debate theory." So what do we do, run
non-unique disads and Zizek every round?

Then we had judge after judge tell us that Topicality is no longer a voting
issue in the Mid-west (allowing affirmative teams to run "Ban the U.S.
government" and "Native Americans" every round). It was certainly interesting
to have people respond to a well thought out, and evidenced, Topicality
arguments with card after card from Ron Green and others saying that merely
advocating Topicality as a voting issue is the root cause of all violence and
genocide in the world. Some teams just openly declare that they are not
topical, and then go on to fifty point dump on why being non-topical is the
only path to enlightenment, and is an independent reason to vote affirmative! I
am sure the judges sleep better knowing they single handedly stopped the
genocide in Darfur by voting on Topicality as a reverse voting issue. LOL

Is debate really now become just a forum in which anyone can run anything with
no rules other than time limits? Why do we even vote for topics (even the ones
that suck)anymore?

In varsity, I am the first to say pretty much anything goes. I even voted for
critical affirmatives and openly non-topical cases in some varsity rounds I
judged. But it really sucks to have novice and JV teams go to tournaments and
they can no longer have a reasonable expectation that the other teams will be
topical or run plans that propose future action. I think it places way too much
burden on them.

Scott






More information about the Mailman mailing list