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

Re: Against "change"

I want to agree with Ken's post below regarding avoiding the word 
"change" as the verb of the resolution, but for an additional reason: 
such bidirectional verbs have been the leading reason, in my mind, 
for the creation of what I believe is just fundamentally bad debate 
theory regarding advocacy burdens and counterplans.  With 
bidirectional topics, negatives frustrated with "agent of action," 
"study/delay," or "utopian" counterplan options began the "fairness" 
chant.  This eventually became a mantra that has now removed any 
meaning whatsoever from the words "affirmative" and "negative" 
(making most debate ballots a mockery of the activity), and allowed 
negatives to run clearly topical advocacy as counterplan ground.

While I sympathize to a large degree with the plight of negatives on 
bidirectional topics, I'd rather word resolutions so negative has 
some counterplan ground than recreate fundamental advocacy burdens so 
that nothing much matters anymore.  Ken speaks to the problems of 
encouraging novices when disad ground is unpredictable; I speak to 
the problem of telling novices why it doesn't matter whether they're 
affirmative or negative, they can argue the same damn side of the 
resolution.

Terry West
Southern Utah


> Date sent:      Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
> Send reply to:  broda@midget.towson.edu
> From:           Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>
> To:             Issues concerning CEDA Debate  <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject:        Against "change"
> Originally to:  The CEDA Listserve <ceda-l@cornell.edu>

> 
> Many of the voices on the L represent some of the most experienced 
> coaches and debaters.  We should remind ourselves though that the 
> continued vitality of our activity depends on getting 
> 'never-debated-before' novices into the van in the Fall.  We should 
> consider this in topic framing as well.
> 
> In my experience, promising some predictable ground is a major factor in 
> getting the uncertain novice to take the big step.  Nothing is prized 
> more than the certainty in being affirmative.  Nothing is feared more 
> than the uncertainty of being negative.  As a coach I think I need to 
> have some reasonable answer to the question, "what will we say on the 
> negative."  I like being able to say, "well, at least 80% of the time you 
> are going to be able to say X."  And I like it when 'X' isn't a critique 
> or a T.
> 
> This is an argument in favor of preserving directionality in the topic 
> and against including the word "change."  The environment topic, for all 
> its uncertainty, allowed us to council novices that a position linking to 
> 'regulation bad' was at least assertable for just about any negative 
> ground.  This is a concession that does not impair advanced debaters in 
> any way since they are all hopefully going beyond this generic link 
> step.  Eventually, we want debaters to embrace flexibility, but they will 
> never get a chance to do that if they don't get in the van that first 
> time.  And if they don't have a reasonable prediction of what they will 
> say half of the time, then they may not get in.
> 
> "Change bad" simply isn't generic ground, and the critique or the generic 
> T probably isn't the best way to introduce the activity.  There has been 
> much talk of limiting the gramatical subject of the resolution, but I 
> think this is less important than limiting the action term of the resoltuion.
> 
> E.g., 
> 
>       'increase security assistance' or 'decrease security assistance'
>     
>       not 'change'
> 
> -Ken Broda-Bahm
> 
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page