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

Re: Topicality: A Voter?

Dear Maxwell aka the Ninja
	Well we are very similar, our dashing good looks, our cleverness,
comcommitment to debate nano, and our numerous piercings(?.  However, I
disagdisagree with a few of your arguments on topicality.  To refer to your
arguments I will label them with the number that you agve in order to cut
down on the length of my message (Thanks Jamey my god and master of of
email).-(stop rambling Alex Jamey is watching)

#1We agree, obviously, Topicality is a ground issue.
#2 you argue social contract.  We are bound to debate a similar topic by
some nebulous agreement to debate the resolution.
  Answers:
	1)  Why, the ultimate of debate questions.  Let us suppose that
there is a social contract.  What is a contract?  It is an agreement made by
both parties to ensure fairness, legitamacy, and in many cases in prevention
of injury.  Therefore any type of contract in the debate world would exist
to prevent abuse ie: the contract exists to prevent one team from
encroaching on another teams ground.  Therefore, the social contract is
there as a standard in terms of ground.  Therefore we could not be in the
resolution or be a penumbra case of the resolution and still not loose to a
violation.
	2)Implicit in the concept of a contract is the need for the terms of
the agreement to be defined prior to acceptance of the contract. The assumption that debators upon registering
for a tournament have agreed to the said contract implies that the
resolutional interpretation as well as the punishment for a violation have
already been agreed to. Such an agreement would rendor the actual topicality
debate in the context of the round, which follows the agreement illegitimate
or at the least redundant.
#3 The T Storm random bastardization of the English language. Sorry Max I
fear the depth of this point escapes us.
  Answers:
	1)Not to be overly trite on T storms reason but I think this says T
is good because I want it to be.  If so, I say no really loud.
	2)If bastardization refers to the affirmative case escaping the
normal bounds of the syntaxtic and semantical conversion set, (I made up the
phrase it now means something along the lines of reasonability) The original
ground issue is stil at the heart of the matter.  The interpretation of
language is gray.  In the context of the debate game we plunge into this
grayness with some sort of purpose.  Alex's point that ground is the only
reason for t means the way we sort through this bastardization is with the
purpose of providing ground.  Absent this, bastardization is just another
act.
	3)if the bastard is t and not the case, so be it
#4 The dictionaries are good one.
	1)Max we will include 10 vocab words on the bottom of case(after the
counterstandard) Fun is fun. this way we can maintain the market demand for
dictionaries, and prevent an aggregate depression sperned by lax t
standards..

Anyway we find these t discussions enlightening. Thanks ninja master for the
sparring practice.

Too deep into T
Alex and Adam
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page