ans Josh

[Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>]

you are making the assumption that just because we've heard your
affirmative 3 times before that we had any clue what ya'll were talking
about.  and that Berman and Shaffer actually kept a flow rather than
doodling innanely the entire round.

what are you talking about?  the Hoe conception of negative disclosure
seemed to be an ever-expanding one.  by Heart it became "we should get
to read your negative evidence" not just the text of the counterplan. 
and if a negative said "this is what we think we'll run - really, we're
pretty sure this is it, but it may change if we think of something new"
then your view was "they're not disclosing".  even the fourth time
debating it, our folks get fresh ideas and they get them during the
debate when they're focussed on the matter at hand:  i believe in
executing the strategy but i believe more in teaching debaters to seize
the opportunities presented them in rounds.

friendly competition and openness doesn't depend on negative disclosure,
and silliness and self-righteous indignation didn't seem to diminish
when folks disclosed negative.

i too think that the CEDA way of doing things is very good and that we
have a lot to teach our NDT colleagues.  but i don't think negative
disclosure is one of those things.

thanks for reading,
michael korcok

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: ans Josh
• From: tjewell@unm.edu

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Mail Fraudl
• Next by Date: UNCs
• Prev by thread: Re: Mail Fraudl
• Next by thread: Re: ans Josh
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page