[eDebate] Fun With The Likert Scale
Tue Mar 10 10:02:57 CDT 2009
lots of topics (in the past and this year) have read "one or more" or
"and/or" when listing option for the aff plan to deal with. if a 1AC plan
didn't specify those but merely repeated the resolution's broad/amorphous
wording and the 2NC cx question was "So, which of these (commodities,
nations, types of pressure on China, etc) does the plan deal with?" i think
most/all of the judge pool would expect an answer from the 1AC.
from that perspective, i'm not sure why "nearly all" is any different in
terms of creating ground and education in the debate...other than the fact
that such dodgy wording allows the AFF to avoid giving up certain "exempt
subsidy X" CP competition (which, imo, can be dealt with in other ways).
otoh, my personal philosophy on plan specificity has usually been the AFF
need only specify as much as their solvency evidence requires. e.g., if the
solvency authors don't specify which branch of the USFG should take action,
the plan need not either. applied to this issue, perhaps the reasonable
standard is that the AFF need only specify which subsidies they eliminate as
much as their solvency authors do.
while i'm not strongly opinionated either way, i will disagree with
russell's implication and say i do think a debate over this question could
be interesting and educational. it would require some topic specific
evidence and a level of debate theory debating more nuanced and developed
than stale a-spec debates. thus, i do "care."
imo, part of the atrophy in good T debates over the years (along with
resolutions that are so verbose they squeeze the creative life out of plan
writing) is that there's been too much focus on predictable ground (defined
as "which of my generic backfiles can i run?") and not enough on education
(defined as "field contextual interpretations that provide topic specific
understandings of aff/neg ground"). i.e., what unique areas of contestable
ground are to be found in this year's topic? the debate over what
constitutes 'eliminating nearly all domestic subsidies' is one such area
that has not been fully explored.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:58 AM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:
> Affirmatives should specify the subsidies their plan eliminates if asked
> in the CX of the 1ac:
> 1. Strongly disagree
> 2. Disagree
> 3. Neither agree or disagree
> 4. Agree
> 5. Strongly Agree
> Me? 5. Strongly Agree.
> lacyjp at wfu.edu
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman