[eDebate] Andy, The issue is not creativity within a topic--but whether you have a burden to affirm the topic

[scottelliott at grandecom.net]

Simple: Because it was not agreed to by both teams in advance. If prior to the
round, both teams agree. The I am o.k. with that. But for you to unilaterally
get to choose the resolution and impose it on the negative, seems
"super-abusive" to me.

Scott

Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:


> I think i am arguing for stricter application of it as a concept. I think

> ken sherwood is arguing that his students have been put in a box where

> creativity is the only way out...why is it ok to assault the topics validity

> by hiding in an unforseen corner of it, but not ok to offer another topic

> that you will be willing to be bound by.

>

> On 6/27/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

> >

> > That is why  I bitch and complin so much when poorly worded topics are

> > drafted.

> > That is why, when I am writing a topic paper on solving global warming,

> > alomst

> > a year in advance, I am more concerned with topic wording than on finding

> > and

> > explaining the a problem area.

> >

> > Two examples; Everyone says, Gee we should debate Mid-East policy. Then

> > they

> > have two or three days to craft resolutions on one of the most complicated

> > topic areas ever. Next year, everyone will, for some reason, say Yeah,

> > let's

> > debate Relations with South America, but will have the same difficulty

> > crafting

> > meaningful resolutions in just two days.

> >

> > Finding cases within a resolution that are "super abusive" is the function

> > of a

> > poorly worded resolution. But that does not deny the original issue that

> > topicality, as a concept, should be a voting issue.

> >

> > Frankly, I would love to debate Resolved: The United States should remove

> > all or

> > nearly all troops from Iraq.

> >

> > Quoting Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>:

> >

> > > My argument is that all the aff flex permitted under  current

> > resolutions IS

> > > the problem, Many of your examples prove my point about arguments that

> > > intentionaly skew and muddle research ground being permitted by simply

> > > having the aff give a performative nod to the topic, "i at least  have

> > an

> > > intepration" aff that you either a) could have never guessed or b) sets

> > you

> > > up to turn all of your opponents args are super abusive. The ones you

> > point

> > > out distract more i feel from the good debate at the core of the topic

> > than

> > > simply debating iraq...but i get your argument...

> > >

> > > On 6/27/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I want to clarify one point Andy brought up. Creativity within a

> > chosen

> > > > resolution is fine with me. In fifteen years of coaching and judging

> > > > debates, I

> > > > can literally count on one hand the times I actually voted negative on

> > a

> > > > topicality violation. In fact, i can only remember voting for T once

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > past ten years. It was an impressive T debate that I still use as an

> > > > example to

> > > > students. (Emory vs. miami on the issue of whether a carbon tax was a

> > > > "regulation")

> > > >

> > > > These Mid-East resolutions, because they are so flawed, make it

> > extremely

> > > > easy

> > > > for affirmatives to offer interpretations of the resolutuon that were

> > not

> > > > intended by the Topic Committee. While I am sure they all want us to

> > > > debate the

> > > > "Grand Bargain" with Iran, almost literally word for word the terms of

> > the

> > > > resolution, there is still plenty of room for people to debate

> > important

> > > > issues--just as important as getting out of Iraq, or whether we should

> > > > wipeout

> > > > smallpox as a species.

> > > >

> > > > One quick example: Some people riduculed my question of whether

> > > > governments in

> > > > exile would be topical. Well, given that the PLA now has two decidely

> > > > distinct

> > > > governments, would anybody suggest that a case for constructive

> > engagment

> > > > with

> > > > Abbas, the West bank PLA government would not be topical? There is

> > PLENTY

> > > > of

> > > > literature on the subject. And, of course, it turns the hell out of

> > any

> > > > Israel

> > > > disads. Alternatively, Jimmy Carter is calling for constructive

> > engagement

> > > > with

> > > > the PLA government of Hamas in Gaza. Would that also be topical? So

> > now

> > > > there

> > > > are two topical cases--CE with the "government of the PLA" that are,

> > in

> > > > fact,

> > > > mutually exclusive (I'd love to see the plan versus counter-plan

> > debate,

> > > > one

> > > > takes Fatah, the other takes Hamas for a real throw down).

> > > >

> > > > The government of Syria refuses to recognize that a soveriegn

> > government

> > > > of

> > > > Lebanon exists. Does engagement with the controlling factions of

> > Lebanon

> > > > really

> > > > constitute engagement with the government of Lebanon?

> > > >

> > > > Is Hamas a "government" because it controls territory in Gaza? They

> > did

> > > > win the

> > > > election by the way.  If so, does Hamas in Lebanon constitute a

> > > > "government" of

> > > > Lebanon, given that they control certain land areas and political

> > > > districts of

> > > > southern Lebanon?

> > > >

> > > > Notice that the resolutuions to be voted on do not say "national

> > > > governments

> > > > of..." It just says "government of"..... Does this mean we can work

> > with

> > > > the

> > > > Iranian Caspian Sea conservation district to save the sturgeons

> > without

> > > > necessarily having to engage the National Government being run by

> > people

> > > > calling for the extermination of Israel?

> > > >

> > > > That is just a play on the term "government."

> > > >

> > > > "foriegn aid" and "security guarantees" have huge amoutns of room for

> > the

> > > > teams

> > > > willing to put it on the line. I would tell you, but I want to have a

> > few

> > > > cases

> > > > left to run this Fall.

> > > >

> > > > The issue for me, and I bet for Ken and Jim and others, has NEVER been

> > > > whether

> > > > teams should be able to creatively interpret, or creatively affirm the

> > > > resolution. The only only issue is that they actually affirm the the

> > > > resolution, either through a plan, or through some other form of

> > > > affirmation.

> > > > This provides everyone-aff., neg., and the judge, with a clear

> > starting

> > > > point

> > > > for discussion and debate. And, if the affirmative chooses to use

> > their

> > > > time to

> > > > affirm something other than the resolution, they should not pick up

> > the

> > > > ballot.

> > > >

> > > > Scott

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > _______________________________________________

> > > > eDebate mailing list

> > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>