topics

[tmahoney <tmahoney@xmission.com>]

I wonder why people support value/fact topics????? Supposedly for the 
'educational value' I think. Even if this is a worthy goal it is 
irrelevant the majority (I venture at least 75%) of teams will make the 
same arguments regardless of the rez type.

For example, Adam Chud suggests the following rez:

Resolved: that advances in information technology help the interests of
women and minorities in the U.S.

Aff says the world wide web = more jobs for women and minorities. Neg 
says helping women helps fem = conservative backlash = nuclear war. Aff 
says turn helping women kills fem movements (they say this regardless of rez 
type just as the neg runs this DA regardless of rez type) and irrelevent 
rez mandates the interests of women and minorities be the only impacts we 
consider. This second argument is answered with the stock women and 
minorities will die in a nuclear war, too.

I prefer Latin America to infotech but if infotech wins I think Chud's 
(w/ help from Trond) other 2 possible rez's have potential. 

Josh suggested that since a portion of our community favors value rez's 
that we should make them an option. I tend to think those people favor 
value rez's despite their practical effect but one or two can't hurt. I 
think we should avoid the fact rez's though. I seem to remember that 
virtually no one supports those.

Tim Mahoney, Pace U.
"Inspiration is the breeding ground of double turns"
Pace/ND debate Feb. 4, 1995

---

• Prev by Date: context
• Next by Date: Chud's Doom
• Prev by thread: Re: topics
• Next by thread: sorry brad
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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