Researched topic wordings

[Doyle Srader <DSRADER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>]

Steve Mancuso and I agree 100%, and I'm wondering if that bright flash
outside my window was Comet Kohoutek. The very best commentary on topic
wording possibilities is that which is backed by research. Second best
is commentary based upon past experience with topic wordings. A distant
third is proposals for words that we all know the meaning of, but which
no one can define with any rigor.

I've also noticed the dearth of proposals for U.S. action in writings
about Southeast Asia. This is nice: Dick and Stacey may actually have
found a problem area that has a built-in corrective for the affirmative
bias. <Not a _cure_, but a _corrective_.> But let's not get *too*
complacent: I can name a half-dozen affirmatives from the past few
seasons that were highly successful, but for which there was no author
advocating adoption of the plan. The scarcity of overtly advocated
proposals is a check on affirmatives, but isn't a boundary.

Back to work.

Doyle Srader
University of Georgia
<706> 548-9938

---

• Prev by Date: NLU Fall 1997 Tournament
• Next by Date: Re: Researched topic wordings
• Prev by thread: NLU Fall 1997 Tournament
• Next by thread: Re: Researched topic wordings
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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