[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
topicality views
I'm curious about how a lot of the critics out
there view T. If there has already been a
thread on this and I am only rehashing old
issues, sorry.
There was a round where we ran T, and the
Affirmative had no counter-definition, no
counter-interpretation, no counter-standards
and no "we meet" answers. All they did was
indict our interpretation as being bad. We did
drop a ballot this round, and I'm curious how
people see this.
To me, the Affirmative is topical until
challenged. After the T shell is read the
Affirmative is not topical because they do not
meet the Negative interpretation (which is a
clear violation of the resolution, as opposed to
"I read the 1AC, therefore I am Topical")
Even if the Affirmative can prove that the Neg.
interp is bad...what is there to look to, if there is
no counter-interpretation to look to? If the
Affirmative's presumption of being topical is
gone the moment the T shell is read, then
shouldn't the Affirmative have to prove a
counter-interpretation that is better than the
Negative's (and supported by a definition and
standards) to win? So, even if the Negative
interpretation is proven to be bad (because it
onerlimits, for example), it is still the only
interpretation in the round so shouldn't the critic
have to vote on it?
Just curious how you feel
Sean
SWT
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page