[eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
Wed Jan 21 19:40:53 CST 2009
We found ourselves in this situation recently. We initially said we had both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the toss, and then decided to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed.
My preference would be a community that doesn't have to disclose the "new aff" but one that would at least commit to reading a new or existing one.
My one recognition would be that if we were the negative, we would prep the old aff anyway so it might not make much difference.
But I would prefer that one team not have potentially even more leverage in a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new affirmative to try and get the other team to chose to read their own affirmative.
> From: debate at ou.edu
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600
> Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
> I have a question and trying to find a community opinion.
> If one team wins the toss, how should these scenarios play out.
> Do you have to commit to an affirmative before the other team chooses negative?
> Is it okay to say
> We could run a new aff or an old aff.
> or do you have to say the exact affirmative you would run?
> The key question, do you have to commit to a specific affirmative before the other team chooses their side? Does that take away the reciprocity the team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin toss?
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
Windows Live? Hotmail?:?more than just e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman