[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
RE: Neg Fiat
Well, It doesn't make a lot of difference. You still ask yourself whether
or not the judge can intellectually endorse a negative counterplan, or just
evaluate the effects of that loss of opportunity on endorsement of an
affirmative plan.
Chris Smith
Woodland Park HS Debate
"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations
of a material and finite world."
- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love
-----Original Message-----
From: mgremillion@selu.edu [SMTP:mgremillion@selu.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 1997 1:30 PM
To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate
Subject:
19 May 1997 14:29:10 CDT@
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:23:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: NEG. Fiat
To: CEDA-L@Cornell.Edu
Message-id: <01IJ225701HSAKUJZX@selu.edu>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Why not simply do away with the entire concept of fiat and adopt in its
place the concept of intellectual endorsement. After listening to enough
Kritik debates, I've come to the conclusion that fiat really is a joke.
I've been judging for a number of years and have never cuased nor
preventeda war with
my ballot. Why not just say that the judge is voting for X case as an act
of intellectual endorsement of a particular proposal. This would open up
negative ground to argue Kritiks right from the start (absent the
procedural
hurdles); could possibly spike out the political perception disads (how
can my endorsement of a program/policy possibly cripple U.S. credibility);
and allow the negative to offer counter-proposals that could also gain
my intellectual endorsement.
Let's get rid off the archaic concept of fiat once and for all.
Scott M. Elliott
SELU
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page