[eDebate] (no subject)

[Andy Ellis]

So yeah

Aff flexibility in the resolution keeps  some  "non topical k affs" from
ever getting there. I am not talking about the people who are a/anti-topical
from the begining, but my observation has been that  many of the teams that
slide toward the "we dont defend the consequences" or its symbolic and so
are all your disads or whatever sorta topical but not resolutional approach
they take are not doing so at the begining of the season but find the
limited options the resolution offers forces them to do so to craft the
debate they want...now of course there are people who will be non topical
regardless and other strategic concerns will keep people drifting further
away...but some more flexibility will keep some of the marginally topical
teams (often the most abusive) from getting there in the first place...and
to that end i would suggest tacking on "or not" and "or nothing" to the end
of any resolution...ok not really, but i would suggest that the weapons
papers and the middle east papers suggest to me the most possibility for
keeping these options open...I believe that one thing that is important to
this is to have interpretable and debatable terms in the resolution and i
think both have the possibilities to do this...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070412/b1a516bf/attachment.htm