[eDebate] More thoughts on crafting the topic.
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Wed Feb 11 16:19:24 CST 2009
One of my former debaters who went on to debate for Southern illinois and who is
now a lawyer recently got back in touch with me. I thought I would pass the
following unsolcited response to reading this years topic (LOL):
"I went to look up this year's topic and found this on the NDT website:
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce
its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic
subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton,
dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.
So apologies in advance if this topic was your idea, or you love it or
something, but here is my honest opinion as an old washed up former debater.
Are they on crack? What a bullshit topic. I'm jsut gonna totally overlook the
fact that it's pretty damn narrow and uninteresting and go straight to the fact
that CEDA/NDT apparently needs a proofreader. How the hell can you explain the
comma between subsidies and for? What possible meaning under any interpretation
could that add to the topic? Is somone running typos good on the affirmative?
OK even if thats jsut a typo, which I hope to god it is, "...at least
elimianting nearly all of..." this list of things. WTF????!@&!! What in the
hell does that even mean? Do they not realize that the "at least" is implicit
in the logical structure of the sentence. If they took it out you would still
have to eliminate "nearly all" of the things on the list as I read it, and
adding the "at least" explicitly jsut introduces ambiguity and makes it look
like a monkey that knows sign laguage came up with the topic."
It made my day.
More information about the Mailman