topics

[Dallas Perkins <dperkins@husc.harvard.edu>]

When I first read Gordon/Doyle, I got the idea that they were proposing a
topic which simply made EXISTING aid or trade contingent upon some action
by the foreign government.  Now it appears that everybody envisions a
topic where the aff can create some new aid or trade which will then have
conditions attached.  Given how easy it will be for the neg to counterplan
against any advantages to the new aid or trade, I am not sure what the
added ground of new aid/trade gets the aff.  It seems to me that things
might be a bit more elegant if the topic were limited to existing aid.

Two things if we did allow new aid/trade.  First, I guess the aff could
offer a bigger bribe than status quo aid/trade.  That would certainly
promote creativity in plans, and expand affirmative possibilities.

Second, there might be advantages to forcing the neg to counterplan with
unconditional aid/trade a lot:  the links to Clinton and politics would at
least be more complicated, so that we might get more substantive debates.

A couple of weeks ago, somebody wrote that where they debate, lots of
judges will not accept counterplans.  For them, this topic is not very
limited at all!

dp

---

• Prev by Date: UNI Dates
• Next by Date: change and bi-directionality
• Prev by thread: UNI Dates
• Next by thread: topics
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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