Re: treaties

[Zack Brown <zack@tsw.berkeley.edu>]

Sean Harris says:
>I don't understand why this topic area would help small schools.  There
>are 48 topical cases (plus any new treaties we might want to ratify, which
>could, if the res is worded right, be infinite).  Even if there are 48
>cases, they cover so many different areas that you *need* a case debate in
>order to win.  

Here are some reasons a small researching squad could cover:

1.  Finite aff ground (48 is many, but now is infinite)
2.  Predictable aff ground (known from day 1)
3.  Joint neg ground (like i-law bad, us heg bad, formalism bad, etc.)
4.  Good Inherency/Uniqueness (see topic paper)
5.  Not all treaties will be useful (just survey them all, then focus)
6.  Two or three will be your Affs (and thoroughly researched)
7.  Prominence in literature - and most of the treaties are contoversial
8.  Constancy of topic allows focus on key treaties throughout year


Need more? 

(BTW, what have you got against case debate?)  :)

Zack

PS:  I think that we would be wise to choose the resolution that covers
     current treaties ratified without modification.

---

• Prev by Date: Treaties - Agent of Action
• Next by Date: ADA Business Meeting
• Prev by thread: Treaties - Agent of Action
• Next by thread: ADA Business Meeting
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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