[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
On Thu, 1 May 1997 email@example.com wrote:
> 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.
This is where I am concerned about the CFR reform topic. I debated the
immigration topic in HS and its multidirectionality was terrible and I see
perpensity of that happening on with a CFR topic as fairly high. I think
with a multitude of potential affirmatives we are unable to get into depth
of arguments. If there were more defined limits with a CFR topic I think
that I would be more willing to examine the potential of debating the
My other thought on this would be the chances of having a plan plan
debate on this topic. I am not a big fan of this type of strategy but see
it as being a feasible strategy for many teams.
Just some thoughts from Seattle
> 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
> 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.
- Re: CFR
- From: RACE --- <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page