[eDebate] K ground -- Who cares?

JP Lacy lacyjp
Tue Apr 22 23:36:45 CDT 2008

Seriously. Who *really* cares?

When I look at topics for negative ground, I ask myself "What are the 
core reasons we haven't done the affirmative?"

If those reasons are good, be they "domestic politics DAs," K's, or 
plain old disadvantages, who cares?

If the negative has good "intrinsic" reasons why the "core motives" 
underlying the status quo are good, who cares about "K ground"?

If the above is satisfied, who really cares if its *called* "K ground" 
or not? Are you making purely aesthetic judgments about how arguments 
are presented?

Good arguments against change are good arguments, "K" or "policy" jargon 

We shouldn't have to write the topic for "politics" debaters or "K" 
debaters in order to incorporate "good, intrinsic reasons" the plan 
hasn't been done.

We just need a good controversy & those divisions will be irrelevant.

[And, by good controversy, I mean one that affs won't run away from.]

If the best negative ground is balanced enough to win & better than the 
negative "K" ground, then who cares?

If the best reason to reject the plan includes "K's," then who cares?

When did our focus change from "the best clash" to "the best K or 
politics ground?"

More than anything, I'm pushing for "good reasons" than any specific 
ground that a "style" of debate gets.

lacyjp at wfu.edu

More information about the Mailman mailing list