[eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops
Thu Jul 10 16:58:26 CDT 2008
I guess predictability is not the same for me as the ability to
prepare on a team where we don't have many card cutters. I know that
on the neg we will have all of our subsidies argument. For me
fisheries and CAFOs are like two more topics. If I had a huge team of
experienced card cutters I wouldn't worry about debating three
different topics, but experience last year proved to me that we need
to have a coherent negative core set of arguments. I think the
commodity crops does that.
I hear the argument about good deep case debate every year, but it
usually seems like the generics rule the day regardless of the topic.
I would prefer the subsidies generic ground rather than process
counterplans. I guess for me it is the quality of of the generic
debates that matter. My guess is that you will see a lot more consult
or XO debates if we are debating a topic where people have to prepare
for subsidies and two completely different animal affs than you would
under a subsidies only topic.
The worst option is the one that includes both commodity crops and
CAFOs and fisheries.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Morris, Eric R
<EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
> Perhaps fear is not the right word. Certainly, generics can keep the
> negative in the game. I am concerned we'll end up in rounds with shallow
> generics instead of deep case debates. That means relying on generics
> instead of good case defense. Any case will be researched if teams are
> winning with it. If there are enough of them, the research on the major
> cases will suffer accordingly.
> Although I think CAFO's and fisheries might not link to the same
> generics as other parts of the topic, I do have the impression that both
> are large areas that could lead to deep case debates. I think there will
> be a fair number of cases in both areas if they are included in the
> topic, with a smaller percentage of CAFO teams defending the
> implications of a topical plan than fisheries teams.
> I think while either of them is a big debate, the topic is smaller and
> more predictable than with a much longer list. If you think that's
> incorrect, please tell me why before we vote.
> p.s. Glad we are talking about this, regardless of agreement!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
> [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Mike Davis
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:02 PM
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops
> Both Jim and Ermo indicated that the list of 29 commodity one crops
> scared them. We had a long discussion at the topic meeting and I came
> away that I am much more afraid of COFU and fisheries that I am of any
> additional crops. Your generic counterplans, politics DAs (some of the
> specific politics links for these crops are really good) and many of
> the PICS will still work against the smaller crops. Plus some of these
> crops are very interesting.
> I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at these crops before
> dismissing them outright. Some of them might not be affs, but I have
> not been able to find one yet that I would not be willing to go
> negative against.
> Dr. Michael Davis
> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
> James Madison University
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University
More information about the Mailman