[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
extra-t
Although my team and I are busily preparing for USC we came upon a subject
we wanted the list's input on.
Initially, I perceived that stopping the war on drugs as part of your aff is
extra-topical. I am now questioning why an aff should not be allowed to do
this. It makes complete sense (at least to me) why a team shouldn't be
allowed to ban SDI as part of their plan - topical relevance would seem to be
lacking. Some authors suggest that we abandon the wod in order to concentrate
on violent criminals. I'm not sure I have read anything that says we should
ban SDI in order to concentrate on violent criminals.
Now I also begin to wonder if we shouldn't allow affs to be extra-topical. For
example Congress wouldn't say you can't advocate both stopping wod and doing
mandatory minimums for people convicted of murder. Why should judges?
I also think cplans check abuse of extra-topical planks. Even if the aff does
ban SDI and do mandatory minimums the neg could ban SDI as a counterplan and
run DA's to mandatory minimums for net benefits. The extra-topical stuff
doesn't get the aff any real edge.
OK, I am guessing that you will suggest that my example is too simplistic so
let's hear it.
I can't wait to hear debates!
Good luck to everyone.
2AC #7 extend the evidence, group the answers...
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page