[eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Wed Jan 21 21:28:19 CST 2009


1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if it's the loser's
choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or we'll go aff. and run a
new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2.

2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which, plan, advantages,
etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff strategies, generally,
and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an elimination round) probably
requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you call new aff.,
you have to run one.

3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but its a
substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here, that 10% percent
might be 'fish prices low'), then "new aff" is fine...maybe.
3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I say, "Fish with
Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new". People specify that
someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to them, but they sort
of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's _their_ new version/research.
3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which consisted of a new plan
text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with one (two?) new
advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?) old advantages
that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new aff, still Iran, still
proliferation, the rest is new," or something like that.
3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or plan changes are
essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new aff" is seems to have
been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff for that team even if
someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still a new aff. to
everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else has run it).

RG

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis
<kristopherwillis at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  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.
> Kris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
> >
> > peace
> >
> > jackie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> ------------------------------
> Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090121/0cfb79b2/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list