[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Case debate in the 90s ???
Michael R. Dickman wrote:
> I think that what I was replying to here was the notion that there would
> be no case debate with an AA topic. I unfortunately agree thatin the 90's
> you can't win very often with case arguments. I think that is a failure
> of the judges. However, case debate can help, at least with a judge like
> me! My calculus works like this: If neg gets aff solvency down to a
> pryer and a hope, I am much more lienent on link ev for disads. If I am
> faced with a small hope of solvency vs as small chance of a link (and all
> else is equal)I'll vote neg. (Then again, I'm so old fashioned that if
> aff loses solvency I'll dump them on that alone (absent a disad turn or
> something)! Anyway, I'm still hoping for the cfr topic. I just don't
> think AA will be the disaster some people think it will be.
> CC DEbate
> On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Steven Donald wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Michael R. Dickman wrote:
> > > One of the things that Jeny alme forgets is to look at the "debate"that
> > > has been going on here on the L. Seems to me that the heart of the matter
> > > has been Solvency. Last time I checked solvency was a case argument!
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > CC Debate
> > Yes Mike, solvency is a case argument. It is also a defensive
> > argument. It is also plum worthless in the face of no offensive
> > argument, like a turn, or a disad that makes sense. Your posts make
> > reference to "circumvention" by the american people, or the fact that
> > racism is "systemic" so we can't solve it. Jenny's post highlights the
> > problem that the only thing Matt proposed as the best negative argument
> > is "Down with the state, on with the revolution!" for whatever that gets us.
> > In order for the negative to have any chance, they have to win a disad,
> > or even more importantly, a case specific turn. I can talk until I'm
> > blue in the face about how your case won't solve everything, but until I
> > can say "your case makes racism/sexism/etc., worse," than I'm wasting my
> > time. If you can give me a good reason why upholding civil rights will
> > make civil rights worse off that doesn't come from Douglas, or Raskin, or
> > anothing crackpot "working through the state is the ROOT of the problem"
> > author, then I will be more open to the idea of a year long topic about
> > civil rights.
> > I think Jenny, (and my) point is still valid, that it's time to get over
> > the fantasy that a good negative strategy is "socialism," or "anarchy"
> > or another utopian pipe dream, and look toward a topic that is steeped in
> > negative literature that just doesn't say your plan doesn't do enough,
> > but that it does wrong.
> > Steven Donald
> > UCO Debate
is this really the consensus that case debate has gone the way of T-Rex?
i was out of action for awhile so i can't know firsthand. when i left,
it seemed that case debate was on the upswing. it was a challenge to
outresearch affirmatives on their own cases. even though there was a
disad i thought that the Michigan - Redlands final round was an
incredible transcript. was that considered to include a "case" debate.
when did the shift occur to ignoring the case debates? is this
something peculiar to the previous semester long topic practice in CEDA
or has it been happening on both sides of the GREAT DIVIDE.
living in The Lost World,
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page