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

Re: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS THE BEST TOPIC EVER



On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, RACE --- wrote: 
> i think Segal's comments on negative ground clearly demonstrates that 
> there are core issues.  predictable ground?  whatever.  become an expert 
> on the topic area (i think there are three months to do that), develop 
> DEEP arguments on the core issues in each of the directions.  it is 
> hardly like last year's topic with the term pollutant being one of the 
> broadest terms since the land use topic.

first, why should the negative be required to do that?  why shouldn't the 
negative be able to know that no matter what the affirmative is going to 
have to decrease or increase something but not either, or, or both.  that 
is my only dislike about the topic...it allows for too much 
multidirectionality for the affirmative.   i am all for getting deep on 
arguments and researching for three months before the season...but if 
there are too many case possibilities...then the negative can't be 
properly prepared.

second, Steve and others have used the argument that there are many 
possibilites for the affirmative as a reason to vote for the topic.  
however, they also say that the topic would make it harder for the 
affirmative to win.  i just don't understand how these two arguments can 
coexisit.  if there are many cases to choose from...the negative has to 
be able to debate all avenues...thats hard as this years topic 
illustrates.  

finally, i think that all of the other avenues should be negative 
counterplan ground.  if the affirmative is limited to one core direction 
the negative has all of the ground going the other direction.  but if the 
affirmative can choose from all directions the negative has no core 
counterplan or case turn ground that they can fall back on.

 > 
> in addition, there are ways suggested in some of the proposed Segal 
> resolutions that could provide these limits that you seem to desire to 
> give the negative predictability.  perhaps if the discussion could get 
> beyond the fact that people are so ignorant of the subject matter that 
> they prefer to call it boring or unpredictable and consider it 
> seriously, Scott's efforts in framing a fairly good preliminary 
> discussion (as had been suggested in a previous post by Mancuso) some of 
> the potential depth of the topic would be NOTICED.  So far it seems that 
> ONE debater has taken the time to do that and Steven's conclusions seem 
> at odds with all the rest of yours.

nver once have i said that it would be boring...i don't think that it 
would be.  however, i do think that the options the affirmative should 
not be as numerous as a multidirectional topic allows for.  i like the 
topic A LOT...just want some limits on the affirmative.

Justin Skarb
Arizona State U.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page