[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Ross and good thinking
It is hard to discuss this issue in the vaccuum of current topics......
You are right that the treaties topic would make a team less likely to link
generics because, as you mention, at least you know, for instance, that the aff
must decrease the harm on a harm area topic......However, I keep making the
argument that the harm area hardly constrains the harms claimed. For instance,
on the environment topic you have your we decrease pollution advantage and
multiple other advantages. It is possible that you at least possess generics
against the part of the case that meets the harm area, but, why is that any
less true under a action limited topic?
My argument has become:
All topics will only minimally control what Ross refers to as ground because
it is the literature on a plan that creates the scope of possible advantages
a case can claim. So, the choice of a topic that constrains action ground
as opposed to harm area ground is close to irrelevent in creating
predictability. The topic that constrains action ground, however, does make
the plan more predictable and that makes research burdens more predictable.
The real debate then revolves around:
1. Do both types of topic hurt what Ross refers to as ground, create different
types of generic ground, or do they have different problems in reference to
ground predictability?
2. (assuming the above answer is clear) Is generic ground more or less
important than plan predictability?
I would suggest that the literature on both types of topics creates the
generic ground equally. I am certainly willing to listen to reasons why I am
wrong :). Josh
Joshua B. Hoe
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page