[eDebate] ethical rules of engagement - Clash
Thu Apr 17 21:34:04 CDT 2008
One other thought...The beginning of the year would encourage ALL teams to debate the K in the ways I just mentioned. So the narrow issue isn't an issue. It just changes how we conceptualize generic. Just as you prepared to debate in front of me Brent, by debating an example or analogy, there is no reason in this world teams could have a serious of "generics" that didn't rely on traditional evidence, in addition to topic specific k's. Moreover, who says that topic construction won't preserve more topic argument ground, and with the growth in strategic ability for defensive arguments, the net ease with preparation in the beginning of the season might be somewhat easier than with current narrow topics.
From: "Brent Culpepper" <brentonculpepper at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 4/17/2008 05:03 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] ethical rules of engagement - Clash
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:
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,
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman