Rob Tucker, Ross Smith, and the fish that ate pittsburgh

[Josh <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>]

O.K. I will answer Ross's argument again:

1) False dichotomy - it may be true that you get 48 plans in the world of
   Treaties and 200 plans in the world of CR while you also get 200 harm
   areas in the treaties topic and 48 harm areas under CR....However, it is
   equally as important to have something to say on the case side and plan
   arguments as it is to have a generic disadvantage.
2) Harm area topics to not limit the harms claimed to the harm area in the
   topic.  Most cases next year, if the CR topic is voted in, will only claim
   CR as a link to the topic not as the exclusive area to claim harms from.
   THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION because the additional harms that the
   case can claim serve to multiply the case/plan/advantage variable in terms
   of research.  In other words, under CR, my case is brownfields, my plan
   operates in a way dissimilar to normal means, and my advantages are varied
   from CR to Asian modeling of US human Rights to AIDS.  The negative must
   answer all of these claims and each case serves as a multiplier for all of
   these variables.  The treaties topic makes two of the multipliers less
   dangerous - the action has to be to ratify a currently unratified treaty -
   the means are specified in the Constitution - the harm areas start with
   the 48 subjects of the 48 unratified treaties.  In other words, the
   multipliers decrease, you have a better chance of having predictable
   case ground, you still have predictable generic ground, and you know the
   means of the plan.  Sorry Charlie but anyway you slice it -- more
   predictability and less unfocussed research.

Here is the deal.......I have written the case list for CEDA nationals the last
two years and we are averaging well over one hundred possible cases to hit
at nationals in only sixteen rounds.......Any way you slice that it means we do
a ton of work that never gets used.  Personally, I would rather have more time
to do better deeper and more meaningful research on less possible cases and
maybe even have better and deeper debates.....And with that I will end my
incredible string of run on sentances......Peace....Josh

P>S> you could limit the CR topic the same way by finding out which cases are
on the docket currently etc.
P>P>S I will take the bet on who has done the most research on the CR topic...
      I have researched multiple topics that dealt with the subject matter and
      again researched many of them last year....Age has a few advantages.

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.

---

• Prev by Date: Maexico and limits
• Next by Date: CR topic ground
• Prev by thread: Maexico and limits
• Next by thread: CR topic ground
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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