[eDebate] Could this be?

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Mon Jul 28 12:02:31 CDT 2008


What else do negatives win debates on? Disads, c-plans, solvency turns, and K's.
Am I missing something? You are about to cut Ag subsidies during a presidential
election year--no negative ground? You have a resolution that forces
affirmatives to cut nearly all subsidies of one or more major crops/animals--no
PIC ground? You are going to run a plan that causes a short term spike in the
price of a commodity on the global commodities exchange, no disad ground? You
are about to unleash the forces of free-market economics on a global scale,
openning more markets around the world to U.S. goods and services--no K ground?
I think I would choose negative if I were in outrounds and I knew what case the
affirmative was about to run, regardless of the topic.

But let us assume that you are right and Affirmatives win 80% of their rounds
this year-doubtful given the disclosure requirements. I think it would be
great. Why? Because maybe, just maybe (my hope abounds)people will do a little
RESEARCH on the topic areas before they vote. Ten minutes of research on the Ag
topic will tell you that the only reason why Ag subsidies exist in their current
form is to create political pay-offs and localized pork for Iowa Senators. This
was no hidden secret. Go back and look at the topic paper--very lean on the
negative side of the debate topic proposed. Your concern should have been
raised three months ago when we we looking at potential resolutions. Or, better
yet,  some real research during the resolution drafting meetings. J--CHrist, I
watched 30 plus debate coaches and senior level debaters in a room doing
supposed research on the topic a month ago. Did no one bother to say, "Hey,
wait a minute--there ain't no negative ground?" Wait a minute, what were YOU
doing? Weren't you there at the topic committe meeting?

Maybe, here is a novel idea,
we should have criteria to evaluate whether a topic area or resolution is a
good one. I will volunteer the first standard: equalized ground for debate.
There is a reason why most people would never choose the following resolution:
"Resolved: human enslavement is morally wrong." Sure, you can debate it, but
there is a slight affirmative skew in the topic literature.

It could be worse--we could be debating Russia.

As a community that voted for
the topic area, we get what we deserve every year.


Scott





More information about the Mailman mailing list