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

Rob and C.R.

O.K. Could not resist.....

1. The topic will be debateable only if the debate focusses on the means of
   confronting oppression etc.  The literature is rife with perspectives on
   confrontation.  If the topic instead focusses on a widely believed to be
   true statement we do not learn much and the vision of 1998 becomes gloomy.
2. There is an excellent chance you will not get the debates you desire.
   National finals this year......1AC vote against racism because it sours
   relations with other countries and causes a nuclear war- vote for racism
   because it prevents political backlash souring congress/president relations
   and of course that breakdown causes a nuclear war.  Maybe this is the
   kind of meaningful debate over civil rights that you look forward to.....
   Not I...........(No offense to four excellent debaters in the finals).
3. I know there is not even close to universal agreement on my predictable
   vs. harm area ground posts but when you address the vision of 1988 why
   do you fail to address the question?  I am tired of people asserting that
   ground is predictable and divided fairly........Why not answer the questions
   by supporting fully a specific wording.

I see a vision of nationals in 1988 with 240 cases all barely addressing civil
rights.......In the final round a aspirin for mentally ill homeless case is
defeated by a business confidence disadvantage........The people watching
wonder what we learned at all........

I want to say again, I prefer treaties only because I firmly believe that
ground is limited under the topic more predictably.  Prove your topic will
meaningully divide ground and I will pay more attention.  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