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

[scottelliott at grandecom.net]

I see the resolution as a circle, or a venn diagram, creating a universe of
possible cases to be advocated. I think there is a difference between
attempting to be topical and just chucking out the resolution. The case
examples I gave are, IMO, all topical and I do not even consider them to be
"winking" at the topic.

If reading a poem or doing an Iranian saber dance is your affirmation of the
topic, then fine with me. But I still get to run disads and topicality
violations that stem from a resolution previously agreed to.

Topicality checks, or should check, those affirmatives that stray too far away.
For example, I am still not sure whether CE the Shah of Iran, who has a
government in exile, is topical. That is for the teams to debate out.

You still don't answer the question: Why does the affirmative get to impose its
new resolution on the negative?

Scott


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


> indeed, and thats functionaly what "creativity" within the resolution allows

> now or better yet the affs that wink at the resolution...we see the

> resolution as a circle not a statement, we see the resoloution as a

> mirror...metaphor..whatever or the poems that begin construcily engage, im

> enraged, the middle east is not the beast its you and me....all that stuff

> gets let in under creative interpratations of the resolutuon standards and

> its worse because they say they are topical but you know they arent and you

> have no mechanism to check them back against because t has become a malluble

> tool...

>

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

> >

> > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>