[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: treaties and ground

At 10:23 AM 4/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> In a message dated 4/17/97 8:00:10 PM, Martin wrote:
>>
>> >We need generic ground that is easier to get novices involved.
>>
>> Exactly why we need the treaties topic. Which do you think is easier to
guide
>> a novice into research: go research china links or go find reasons the
Law of
>> the Sea Treaty is bad? It's a no brainer.
>
>	Exactly why we need space.  Which do you think is easier AND MORE
>FUN for a novice or anyone:  go research China links or go find why going
>to space is bad?  Seems to get the best of both worlds...
>
>used to want to be an astronaut,
>Billy Cripe
>NIU

When I was a wee novice I would have rather had a smaller topic to research
than a big one; It was also easier to win negative debates when I was a
novice. Wow, imagine having 49 cases to research and the depth of debate
that would happen. The best of both worlds is the worst of both when
preparing negative research. It seems that some people have gotten used to
the idea of winning 1/2 of their debates by the virtue of which side of the
resolution they get, then picking up a negative round here and there. The
aff. already gets to choose what the debate is and they get the last
speech, it makes no sense to choose a topic that unfairly divides ground
vs. the alternatives. 
I used to want to be a fireman, it doesn't mean I want to debate fire.

peace,
Danny Bell
Pace U. 
"Let's all strap bombs to our backs and ride our bikes to the next G-7
picnic." Propagandhi.
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page