[eDebate] K ground -- Who cares?

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Wed Apr 23 07:22:16 CDT 2008

When this many "words" get put in quotation marks, it's time to move on and earn your PhD :)
Good post, though--a "good" controversy is key.


From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of JP Lacy
Sent: Wed 4/23/2008 12:36 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com; lacyjp at wfu.edu
Subject: [eDebate] K ground -- Who cares?

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

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list