Re: Against "change"

[Sean Upton <Sean.Upton@m.cc.utah.edu>]

Ken is right that a wording that just asks for "change" might be bad for 
generic negtive ground (and especilly in regrds to novices and small 
programs with limited research resources).  Limiting the action verbs is 
an extrememly important thing for the topic committe people to do.  For 
me, this doesn't necessarily limit out bi-directionality - it limits 
"ANY-directionality."  Take for example the 94-95 high school immigration 
topic, which had the terms "increase regulation" - by virtue of the 
nature of regulation, there could be multiple (perhaps nearly opposite) 
types of regulation, but they all had the common thread of increase 
regulation, which provided for generic negative ground.  I think that 
"change" is far too broad and arbitrarily multi-directional to avoid 
problems in terms of ground.  It would be nice to have something in 
common for generic negtive ground this year besides "US foreign policy 
bad..." (or perhaps under a "change" topic, this wouldn't even be 
available, because it would just get turned by cases that decreased US 
influence).

Sean
Utah Debate

---

References:

• Against "change"
• From: Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Against "change"
• Next by Date: let's not do the military thing
• Prev by thread: Against "change"
• Next by thread: let's not do the military thing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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