[eDebate] oddly enough, i agree with Josh
Mon Jul 6 17:22:37 CDT 2009
I am still thinking about the Russia problem in relation to one and
two...obviously its a problem for all three resolutions its just explicitly
referenced in three.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Malcolm Gordon <malgor.debate at gmail.com>wrote:
> Mark it 8, dude.
> I'm tired of lists, but even if lists were the cat's pajamas, this one is
> lacking. It is better than the Europe topic, a topic meeting that I am
> pretty sure consisted of a list of policies slightly related to europe taped
> to a dartboard, after which a monkey through darts at said board. Those
> items were then compiled into a resolution. Sorry, back to the issue at
> The russia thing is scary. Yes, the aff has to at least offer the nuclear
> reduction....but they can ask for anything they want in exchange for it. KU
> is salivating at the prospect of thirty five new NDT affs.
> I understand that 3 is both bigger and smaller-yes it articulates exactly
> what affs are topical (sort of, there will still be annoying, unrelated,
> non-universal T debates), but it also adds relatively unrelated ground. and
> the uniqueness concern of Hoe in light of the agreement yesterday is valid.
> The way Uniqueness debates are evaluated means any aff running this case is
> at a huge advantage. CEDA nationals on the China topic came down to
> "pressure now." Is that what we want again? A whole year of Observation 4
> nuclear agreements now?
> Last random thing-I have done 7 resolutions. Treaties-Ag. Of those, only
> 1 had no element of a list (fossil fuels). Treaties, Europe, Courts, Ag,
> and Middle East were all pretty explicit lists. China had elements of a
> list (harms areas listed out). Some were good, some were bad.
> But can we recall a time. Now some of you might remember this....in the
> great long-long ago. There were these debates about something called
> "topicality." it was a concept that part of debate is understanding and
> comparing the analytic usefulness of certain terms and definition. It
> forced us to think about how differing opinions of words can effect the
> substance of our activity. It even meant that your skill level changed the
> boundaries of the topic (the better you are at T, the more flexible you can
> be on the aff....fossil fuels is a good example. Sometimes when we were aff
> we had a cap, sometimes we didn't....) I LIKE the idea that your skill can
> change the boundaries of the resolution.
> Now we all share so many stories about the terrible T debates we judge
> (when they actually occur). Is it any wonder debaters don't know how to
> debate topicality anymore? Debating procedure is not educationally
> bankrupt, it has tangible application to real world situations, ESPECIALLY
> in the policy-making and legal fields. Knowing how to stretch the
> boundaries of what you can and cannot do is a good thing.
> Yes i remember those days, though there weren't many of them. Sometimes I
> wish we could go back to the long-long ago. Back when we taught students
> about debating things. Remember when we weren't scared to debate things?
> God those were the days. As much as I want to vote for a list just so CTBT
> affs don't have to debate topicality....no thanks. I can think of better
> criterion to organize an entire season around.
> much love
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman