significantly

[t-brid <NY943030@PACEVM.DAC.PACE.EDU>]

although there are certain defintions that quantify 'significant' with a
percentage,these hardly seem to clarify how one is to quantify it in reference
to a particular field.  i have yet to see a definition that makes the
distinction   within topic literature.  topics should be worded  to model the
words and phrases of the topic literature, and if the word 'significant'
is not defined, or a presciption for how to approach the topic 'significantly'
is not given within the literature, the word should be avoided.

considering the fact that these words (sigificantly and substantially) are not
defined in topic literature the only purpose they seem to hold is as time
sucks or to convolute topic interpetation.  first, as far as time sucks go,
this seems to be the prime example.  all any team has to do is find a sig.
definition that says it must be 50%.  i didn't see a case all year that
increased the development of the earths ocean resources by 50%.  i don't even
think it is possible, let alone any topic research that says, 'this case would
increase devlepment of the earths ocean resources by 50%'.  secondly, this
seems only to complicate the way we understand the topic.  do we have to
increase the development of one or two ocean resources significantly, or of
all ocean resources?  there seems to be a case made for both.  the superior
interpetation (i will assert) is one that allows in depth debate of a
particular issue.  this would best be achieved by making clear the intent of
the topic to promote the topic that only has to increase the development of one
or two ocean resources.  this seems to promote plan debate as opposed to
debating the whole resolution.  although i have argued above that these words
have no impact on affirmative choice, eliminating them will make it clearer
the intent of the framers as to which type of debate they would prefer, plan
or whole res.  it is in fact concievable that an affirmative could write a
plan to increase the development of the earths ocean resources by 50%, but
i doubt they would find a single author who would advocate the plan.  certainly
promoting debate in rounds that also occurs in acedemia is superior to
debaters assembling a compilation of make shift solvency for a plan (i am a
huge hypocrite, but i still prefer the kind of debate i am now advocating).
of course it can be debated out in rounds as to which interpetation on the
topic 'significantly' should have, but it seems to be a waste of time when the
debate can be avoided by more careful topic wording.  if the framer does
desire affirmatives to increase development by 50% (or whatever concrete
quanification they choose) that too should be written into the topic. we should
avoid the vagueness of 'significantly' and 'substantially.'

the effect of these words is doesn't exist.  it is advantageous to run a case
that is 'significant' because of the literature that is on it.  those who
chose to run small cases are empirically not deterred by a vague qualifier in
the topic.  eliminating the use of these vague qualifiers can only be
benificial.
love
taylor
pace debate
if anyone disagrees/agrees, feel free to comment.

---

• Prev by Date: Re: The Judges Will Have a Lot of Explaining to Do! (fwd)
• Next by Date: reviewRe: NDT 95-96 topics proposed
• Prev by thread: mailing list?
• Next by thread: Tom Jewell's Claim of No Response From the Topic Committee
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page