[eDebate] Reply to Massey
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Mon Apr 7 11:56:38 CDT 2008
The example you gave proves the overall point that writing resolutions are more
difficult than you think. Your example is "Resolved; the United States Federal
Government should substantially change its foriegn policy toward China."
I am not sure how this meets your vision of non-switch side debating. But it
does show how easy it is for someone to "kritik," but offer non-viable
Your example was rejected, first and foremost because it makes the resolution
bidirectional. As with the Mexico topic (which I assume was your model for your
China proposal) such vague wording made the topic almost impossible to debate.
My teams on the Mexico topic ran Cuba the whole Spring semester and only lost
the T debate once.
As in the previous post, the nature of the game requires some forms of fairness
and stable ground. Your alternative does not provide this and I still contend
that these needs trump your personal agency issues.
I think that we can word resolutions elegantly; provide for stable and balanced
ground; and meet community desires to include a broad range of perspectives and
debating styles. But it takes more work than simply posting on edebate. It
requires thoughtful consideration of the topic areas available, research into
possible case areas and then a contemplative analysis of resolutional wording
choices rather than a mad rush to write a resolution within just a couple days.
So, I think you got me jackie on the "show one example" argument. However, once
we see what the "example" of your world is, we find it quite lacking and
Scott (Swampy, insert prejorative here)
More information about the Mailman