[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
critiques...not even a voter
Personally, I don't think critiques should be voting issues. Here's why:
1. The definition of a critique is a review or analysis of an issue.
Just a review. No decision making is neccesarily implied.
2. If the impact of the critique is that implications go beyond the
round then at that point the affirmative can legitimately claim
that the negative team should be dropped for their previous and
future advocacy of the framework in their affirmative rounds. The
critique and round can not be evaluated within a vacume once the negative
offer the issue as a voter because the implications stem beyond the rnd.
This is especially true of framework critiques and "inherent in the
resolution" critiques.
3. The only burden the affirmative has is to respond to the critique
and further the discussion of the issue. Their burden is to analyze
the issue raised by the negative and review it during the round and
then continue that review outside the round. Once awareness is
raised and arguments reciprocated the burden has been met.
4. The negative agreed to operate within the framework by coming to
the tournament. By legitimizing Debate they reify the issue. Therefore
neither team should be dropped for agreeing to operate within the
framework for the purpose of the tournament. If it was THAT repugnant
they should have stayed home, sending a message to the debate community
to select more bland topics in the future.
5. The round itself solves for the critique because debate in and of
itself raises the awareness of everyone who hears it, allowing for
substantive change in the future. The affirmative should not be
voted down for unawareness, rather they should reiprocate argumentation
and move on as an elightened team.
..Joe Boyle
Harding University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page