[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
No Subject
Glen Strickland
Emporia State Debate
>>> <ROSS12@MARSHALL.EDU> 11/10/95 03:00pm >>>
09 Nov 1995 23:38:16 -0400 (EDT)@
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 23:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: The decision to be least interventionist
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Message-id: <01HXGGI3VN5E8X0N80@MARSHALL.EDU>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Just some thoughts...
When Garmon chooses to ignore the negative's argument that "saying
the word perm dejustifies the rez", because, in her opinion it is shallow
and lacks justification, she becomes an active participant in the debate
round.
If the argument-or statement even-is that shallow, it should certainly be
very simple for the aff to answer. I DID NOT see the round-so I am going
completely off of the L discussion, but it seems that the aff is completely
non-responsive. THEY should be making Garmon's arguments, not the
critic. The decision to do so marginalizes negative discourse.
I, as a debater, would be extremely unhappy (maybe pissed is the right
word) if I am going for a clean dropped voter in 2NR-regardless of the
level of analysis on the initial argument-and it is ignored because it
doesn't meet some mystical level of analysis that I could have no way of
knowing.
Now, how that argument impacts the round vis-a-vis OTHER dropped
voters is is another story-certainly 2NR and 2AR in a perfect world will
weigh that for you.
I am not backseat judging-I wasn't in the round, and it sounds like a
tough call. I do, however, disagree immensely with Garmon's path to her
decision. A debater can't drop arguments labelled voters, just like you
can't drop arguments labelled turns, regardless of how easily dismissed
they may be.
Mike Ross
Marshall U
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page