[eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid.

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Sun Jul 13 14:05:08 CDT 2008


I agree with those suggesting the 1A/2A resolutions. 
 
Our debaters, collectively, strongly prefer that set of lists for a variety of reasons, including the increased proximity between most topical affirmatives and the major issues set out in the topic paper, the relative size of the subsidies (which suggests more factors in play with a decision to remove) between the major crops and the minor ones, and the ineffectiveness of the "all or nearly all" ground barrier on small subsidies. 
 
I believe that some (not all) of our debaters think the affirmative ground under CAFO's provides an opportunity for some, not all, critical affirmatives to stay closer to the resolution. I also think that exposure to this literature base helps debaters grapple with one the most important choices we make, regardless of what conclusions they individually draw.
 
A single round should not decide a topic, but it can provide a representative anecdote for a position expressed by many debaters - that each sector included in the topic be well considered for its impact on ground balance, in terms of new cases, etc. Clay had similar concerns about Afghanistan last year - well founded, given the litany of uniqueness problems which plagued negative strategy all year. Uniqueness was the problem in the particular round, as well. Counterplans reducing the case to near zero would have been redundant; the issue was the non-uniqueness of Baudrillard disads, aid disads, or the turn we went for. The best way to handle uniqueness is to have some evidence distinguishing the plan from what's coming in the SQ, and being able to predict the plan increases the odds that such evidence will be cut. 
 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Kuswa, Kevin
Sent: Sun 7/13/08 9:33 AM
To: ed lee; scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid.



On-point, Ed!

To those of you saying "there is still aff flex," that is not the argument...the argument is what type?

The education "we incentivize" in Ed's words should outweigh predictions of ground that are impossible to substantiate.  That's why the proof for the narrow band we have selected is in the pudding/words of the resolution, not one person's speculations about fair ground in an edebate post.

Sure, we can hope that we discuss agriculture instead of federal spending, but it will be harder to do so given this focus.

kevin

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of ed lee
Sent: Sun 7/13/2008 10:32 AM
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid.


I actually agree with Scott.   My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic.  Our squad is large and diverse.  I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate.  I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year.  I would like those debates to be about salient political issues.

I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas.  We will spend an entire year discussing these issues.  I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them.            

e



----- Original Message ----
From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid.


Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches
have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT.
Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a
lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some
hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be
ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst.  I thnk there will be a
"rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top
team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote.

Scott Elliott

p.s.

apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag.




_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


_______________________________________________
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/20080713/2b4b4bc8/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list