[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: A-Life, Mexico, and NDT
I agree with Greg that structual differences account for the differences in
argumentation in CEDA and NDT. However, I think that there is also an
expectation in NDT that the arguments will be germane to the topic.
Better debates occur because the impact area is defined. In CEDA,
debaters must be prepared to argue the impact of almost anything -- including
nanotech and a-life. When judges vote for these arguments, it
encourages the debaters to run them even more. If people
were not tired of these arguments, then they might be willing to
vote for a topic where a simple "no link" answer is not enough to
take out the Disad. Topicality is something that is also run
infrequently in NDT--unless a team is really not topical--because it does
not win rounds (Then again, maybe more of the cases are topical). The
point is that CEDA will not get to a deep level of argumentation on any
topic until we start debating the core issues of the topic.
As far as the actual topics are concerned, I think it's reasonable to
pick "increase development" or "exports," and put "Mexico" as the third
choice. This assures that one of the good resolutions will be debated.
I am hesitant to immediately vote for Mexico because I know that (on our
squad at least) some are drawn to CEDA because of the fact that they can
take a semester off without feeling too far behind.
Andy Snyder, Emory U.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page