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

CFR



On Thu, 1 May 1997 jbskarb@asu.edu 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
topic.
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
Whit


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