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

Re: CFR

Whitney M. Gardner wrote:
> 
>
> 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. 

it doesn't seem as broad as immigration to me.  it seems that certain 
core questions concerning money and influence as well as others can be 
centralized negative ground regardless of the direction.  it seems 
fairly easy to predict the available directions early.  plus, the 
resolution could pick a direction.  also counterplans in the other 
directions would be mutually exclusive and the comparative solvency 
would become the net benefits analysis.  this is NOT plan-plan.  the 
counterplans are COMPETITIVE.

 I think
> with a multitude of potential affirmatives we are unable to get into depth
> of arguments.  

it seems that Scott fairly clearly delineated that the many affirmatives 
would fall into particular classes of CFR approaches which the negative 
can easily prepare.  

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.

this could obviously be done.  i'm not certain "strengthen" is a 
powerful enough term in the first resolution for example.  perhaps 
others have suggestions concerning wordings.

> 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.

see above.  it would be similar but there would still be a competition 
requirement.  the permutation of doing inconsistent proposals seems 
fairly weak.  the question is whether the critics would allow topical 
counterplans.  i think that there is fairly strong agreement on the 
acceptance of alternate direction counterplans on a multi-directional 
topic at the college level.  this probably is another distinction from 
high school where many critics (at least in the past) kneejerked against 
topical counterplans by the negative.
> 
> Just some thoughts from Seattle
> Whit
> thanks.  also i apologize for sounding hostile against Skarb's post.  a 
combination of factors probably the biggest being that the Lakers were 
mounting quite a comeback against Portland.

dbr
> >
> > 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