[eDebate] ethical rules of engagement - Clash

Brent Culpepper brentonculpepper
Thu Apr 17 16:04:12 CDT 2008

This would devastate K ground.........

I actually think this is an interesting idea.  However, it makes the
beginning of the year tough.  Few teams have the ability to debate each
affirmative on its merits at the beginning of the year.  The topic
resolution would have to be very narrow which seems a little antithetical to
a lot of peoples desires of late.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>  Hello again,
> We at Da Ville have spent a lot of time talking about ethical rules of
> engagement.  So far, the conversations have been limited to "our" argument,
> strategies, and positions, but the topic discussion got me thinking.  I know
> foreign policy topics have traditionally been more popular in CEDA/NDT and
> that got me thinking about 1) why; and 2) why do I personally dislike
> debating them.  Some of my hesitancy is that we too often use foreign policy
> as a code for "links to generics": that is true whether for advantages;
> c/p's; disad's' k's; or even performances.  I think this is substantially
> more true of domestic topics as well: reflecting back on my hatred for the
> Agent cp/Politics world of the late 90's.
> It seems What would happen to the game if judges began to add to their
> philosophies, "I'm willing to discount any traditional quotation style piece
> of evidence read in a debate that is not explicitly germane to the topic"?
> I'm thinking about the impact on...
> 1) topic construction; (more focus on having balanced core aff/neg ground)
> 2) topic interest  (people would lose interest in picking topics for links
> to generics)
> 3) research choices (more case work)
> 4) fiat (makes my small brain hurt)
> 5) theory (less need for traditional conceptions of offensive; defense
> could once again win championships...lol)
> It would have a goal of gutting generic argumentation (I know that the
> question is, would it?).  Style may too be affected, although not
> necessarily.  I was thinking if people were forced to rely on other forms of
> argument: examples; analogies to demonstrate relationships as opposed to
> "internal link evidence" how that might help to refocus debates more towards
> the topic selected, instead of giving so many outs away from it.  Just
> spending a couple of minutes thinking about the standard big school/small
> school arguments and whether they would be applicable in this instance made
> my brain hurt even more...Just thinking out loud...Thoughts?
> Have a great day,
> Ede
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/06dda118/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list