CEDA Topic: Recent Comments2008-05-13T20:06:02Zhttp://blog.cedatopic.com/comments/atom.aspxQuick BlogComment on Genetic Engineering - Open Threadtag:blog.cedatopic.com,2008-05-02:1018803Zoheb2008-05-02T19:08:43Z2008-05-02T19:08:43ZComment on Agriculture Open Threadtag:blog.cedatopic.com,2008-04-30:1013242phil rappmund2008-04-30T15:32:27Z2008-04-30T15:32:27ZComment on Agriculture Open Threadtag:blog.cedatopic.com,2008-04-30:1013236phil rappmund2008-04-30T15:28:18Z2008-04-30T15:28:18Z I think it's true that people will still run states. I guess I shouldn't have stated there will be "NO" states CP on the ag topic.
My point was merely the states CP will be a lot harder to win on the ag topic since it makes literally no logical sense, is technically impossible, and has no solvency advocates. People will still run it, but I feel some inherent qualities in the ag lit will prevent some of these CPs from winning.
Like I stated in my post, I think that's important, for a lot of the reasons you pointed out.
I agree- I don't think it's too hard to be negative. In fact, I think a neg bias essentially exists. I think there's also a substantial neg bias on CP theory. I think you raise important points about CP competition, but I think the reality of the status quo is that judges are unconfortable pulling the trigger against a CP on theory. I think a lot of the edebate discussion highlights this point. Many seem to be worried about "neg ground" and "neg flex." Few, in comparison, seem to be concerned about clear solvency advocates and good lit about the necessity of USFG action.
Seeing how that is the case, I think the ag topic is beneficial since it imposes some inherent hurdles to running these super-generic positions. I think the fact that the lit is lop-sided for the aff on the question of states, for example, will allow affs to win more CP debates and force negs to run more specific CPs and case arguments.]]>Comment on Agriculture Open Threadtag:blog.cedatopic.com,2008-04-30:1011676Ryan Galloway2008-04-30T03:27:33Z2008-04-30T03:27:33Z I know this is absurd, but the point of my post is more of a comment against absurd theory debating. The argument that consult will be run on foreign policy topics is essentially the same as Lopez will be run on domestic topics.
It is time to have some serious discussions about counter-plan theory and especially counter-plan competition.
There are too many questionable competitive hyper-generic counter-plans that undermine the community's ability to debate topics in a specific manner that actually causes debates to take place on the educational nature of the topics.
I think good places to start are: *To recognize that it is no longer too hard to be negative: the warrants for "neg flex" are pretty shallow right now. *To create reciprocal FIAT with the AFF: If the Affirmative only uses one level of government/one country--there is a credible reason to think the NEG should be limited as well *To continue to discuss what constitutes a "competitive" counter-plan. This was the final round of the NDT, and I think we should start arriving at a consensus on when a counterplan is a reason to reject the AFF. I have never thought Lopez competes, for example, and I think consult cp's could fall prey to infinite regression. Limiting NEG theory options forces more debates about the AFF.
Last comment, as a coach from a small school, we had a far easier time last year keeping up on the neg than the aff. We had pretty good strategies against a wide variety of affs, but had massive difficulties keeping up with all the negative options against AFF's.
I think the time has come to increase our standards on the negative and make them research a bit more specifically against AFF cases. The place to start is to ratchet up standards against hyper-generic counterplans that pretty much compete with "you used the USFG to do your plan."
RG]]>Comment on Agriculture Open Threadtag:blog.cedatopic.com,2008-04-29:1011449phil rappmund2008-04-29T22:49:45Z2008-04-29T22:49:45Zhttp://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/075050.html