Re: topics whic 'mean nothing'

["D. Kirk Wylie" <wylie@triton.CS.Berkeley.EDU>]

> On Mon, 17 Apr 1995 luchettis@URVAX.URICH.EDU wrote:
<selectively quoting...>
> 
>  > Nathan Hobbs says:
>  >Hmm... I agree with this.  I am greatly in favor of a 'means-nothing'
>  >topic, as a sort-of rest/play-time topic, so we don't burn out for the
>  >spring.
> 
>   Regardless of the topic area we choose (even recreation), it should
> serve some worthwhile purpose.  I'd rather research virtual reality (the
> info/comm topic) or the economy or Latin America than the merits of slip
> 'n' slide as a recreational device.

	First of all, if you can actually find valuable evidence on the 
value of Slip and Slide, I would be the first one to congratulate you. 
Just because a topic doesn't immediately like to nuke war on every 
possible scenario (how many debates on the Latin America topic won't boil 
down to number/timeframe of nukewar scenarios?) doesn't mean that all of 
a sudden research burdens aren't important. I think that you'd see a lot 
of drug legalization cases, a lot of sex cases, a lot of pro 
baseball/football (and collegiate for that matter) cases, because that's 
where the body of evidence is. Personaly, it seems like this would be a 
great opportunity to really test the evidence gathering powers of teams. 
If you CAN find slip 'n' slide evidence, then I think you SHOULD win a 
round on slip 'n' slide.

Kirk Wylie
Cal Debate

---

References:

• Re: topics whic 'mean nothing'
• From: Rajat Sethi <rs52@cornell.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: An Ethical Discussion
• Next by Date: Re: An Ethical Discussion
• Prev by thread: Re: topics whic 'mean nothing'
• Next by thread: Judges explaining decisions and Marshall
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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