College Policy Debate Forums
November 21, 2017, 06:09:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: An argument for education  (Read 8064 times)
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« on: April 22, 2010, 12:50:43 PM »



My primary reason for this post is to start a discussion on the merits of the education topic, which I see as a good choice for next year. My secondary reason for this post is based on my concern that the sheer mass of people that have contributed to the treaties topic will cause other topic choices to be overlooked. Treaties would be an excellent topic, but I am not yet convinced that it is the best / only option (as many backchannel discussions have implied).

I am not going to dive into the viability of this topic in terms of side bias and argumentative depth, since Gordon has already done so in his paper. I am willing to have those conversations, but for now I want to focus on the potential for this topic to increase the notoriety of the debate community (in a good way).

Education has proven to be a viable topic option in the past. I remember debating the high school topic on academic achievement and feeling empowered by discussing ideas that directly influenced my life on a daily basis. Granted, I’m a sucker for domestic topics, but we as a community should consider this topic as a potential catalyst for discussion external from the debate community.

The issues discussed in the education topic paper are merely the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. Even so, the arguments mentioned are each independently capable of being easily transferred to the non-debate world, meaning that we as a community could hold public discussions and debates. Couldn’t we do that with the treaties topic? Yes, but if you’ve never tried to hold a public debate on the merits of treaties I suggest you give it a try some time. Any debate topic has the potential to incite public interest, but how many people not currently in debate are going to come to a discussion on any of the other topics? Comparatively, questions of educational reform, teacher salary, unionization in academia and privatized schooling are all hot topics at the local and national level.

Who cares if our topic is appealing to the outside world? Probably not most of us. When we are comparing argumentative potential to external perceptions of the activity, perception usually takes a back seat. Unfortunately, this strategy is not sustainable as the debate community gradually shrinks and becomes less appealing to new members. Immigration, treaties, space, and the first amendment might appeal to nitch communities out side of debate, but they each continue a tradition of closing off the topic from the community at large.

I do not believe that external interest in our topic should be a deal breaker, but it should matter. In the world where education is a viable and interesting topic option than it warrants serious consideration. While public interest should not be a reason to vote on a bad topic, these kinds of arguments are not applicable with the education topic, since it has a record of working. Of course, voting for the education topic pretty much nixes the nuclear war debate, unless you want to hedge your bets on military readiness or politics. Most of the debate community is uncomfortable with this notion, as proven during the courts topic where there was an almost desperate strive to find the big impacts. 

Tradition, impact size and informal polling says that education will not be next years topic. Potential for external notoriety and recognition dictates that it should. How do we rate these priorities?

-Taylor
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2010, 01:59:32 PM »

Education is a good paper and this is a good post. 

I'm unconvinced by one crucial premise, though. 

I've never historically noticed or heard about any correlation between a particular topic and external support for the activity or interest in it.  I don't think the courts topic produced a new surge of lawyerly donations.

When there is, incidentally, some interest - like when someone just walks into a debate that happens to be on campus - you're pretty much only going to appeal to field experts.  An education expert or an IR prof might wander into a debate.  In such a case, the goal should be to avoid *contrivance*.  Education debaters will still race to big impacts - they'll just have less plausible ways of getting there, so there won't be much opportunity for meaningful interaction with outside education experts unless we want to horrify the shit out of them.

Finally, I don't know that there's any relationship between external interest and novice participation.  Novice college debaters generally enroll because of a class, right?  It seems like a good teacher could sell any one of these topics to any college student intellectually adventurous enough to do college debate.

I agree with your impact assessment.  Were there a tradeoff between the fictional bogeyman of "side bias" and the very stark reality of numerical decline, I'd opt for numbers over perfect balance at the top.  I'm not buying the internal link, though.
Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2010, 06:27:41 PM »

Quote
I've never historically noticed or heard about any correlation between a particular topic and external support for the activity or interest in it.  I don't think the courts topic produced a new surge of lawyerly donations.

I agree that the Courts topic did not cause a massive influx of external interest, but I believe this is largely due to the same issues I mentioned earlier: many of our topics are not directly relatable to the general public. The advantage of the education topic is that it focuses on an issue that Main Street America can easily relate to, particularly if we make an effort to appeal to the non-debate world.

Michael is right that the topic doesn't really matter in a world where people are walking in off the street to watch a varsity round - it's going to sound bizarre either way. What we should consider when looking at these topics is how to simultaneously change our P.R. model while voting on a topic that allows us to do so. It is very telling of our priorities when topic papers never ask the question "how will this better the perception / notoriety of the debate community?" Like I've said, appealing to the non-debate world should not be our priority, but it should be a consideration.

Based on the belief that external perception of the debate community is important to our continued recruitment and growth, topics such as the education proposal offer two important benefits:

1. Debate teams could independently hold public-style debates focusing on the topic, thus showing a 'lite' version of a policy round to people unfamiliar with the activity. This could potentially increase our recruitment pool by first making people interested in the topic and then teaching them the basics of our novice debate format.

2. Education is a powerful and lucrative interest group. Cosponsoring events with local educational institutions would allow us to debate important issues that not only have major local significance but also bring debate to the forefront of everyday life for educators and decision makes in secondary education.

These advantages require a committed effort to be effective, but they ultimately speak to the primary goals of the debate community (applied argumentation, education, rhetorical skills, etc).

This particular analysis may or may not be a reason to consider the education topic for this coming year, but it does speak to a larger need to engage the non-debate world and apply our collective skills in a way that promotes the activity. Once again, this is not the primary objective of a topic decision process, but it is still one worth considering.
Logged
jamiecarroll
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2010, 09:56:46 PM »

so i too am old enough to remember the education topic in high school, and i gotta say-not much was learned about education on that topic.   everything was about states and politics (which outweighs every aff on education, btw, and i don't even like the politics DA).

 college kids will no doubt do a bit better, but i think it's  dangerous to hand the neg such a deadly generic cp that applies to nearly every aff (maybe not natives or DC). i glanced thru the education paper sort of hoping that some silver bullet had been found to deal with states. reduce federal support is not doing it for me-states can always reject federal support on their own. the states could also do every aff you cited evidence for, and in fact many of the solvency authors, esp. for privatization, recommend state and local action.

as to theory, maybe judges will pull the trigger on states theory args-i don't think that happened much on the energy topic, but it could happen. anyways, the point is when it comes to this theory arg, (imagine the following in a seungwon voice) "do you want to bet the topic on it?" do you want to run a social engineering experiment on the debate community for a whole year in which the aff has to figure out how to beat this cp on theory or else be screwed? i've been out of the community for a while, so i could be totally off on this, and judges could have gotten trigger-happy when it comes to theory on utopian cps like states. i hope i'm wrong.

i'd like to imagine a world in which we all sit around in a circle and talk about what education means to our lives in each round. but knowing debaters, it's more likely we'll discuss what effect education policy has on obama's agenda, and what of it can be done by the states.
Logged
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2010, 08:48:42 AM »

Great discussion. Thanks to everyone for taking part and I encourage those reading along to add their perspectives.

External Interest - I should have been clearer in the paper. No topic, on its own, will generate external interest in the debate community without our hard work. My perspective was that based on recent external projects (such as debates supported by the transportation department and the EPA) was that if we debated a topic that had substantial resonance to federal and state policymakers who were currently undergoing substantial policy revision we could approach them to explore cooperative opportunities. As our experience with our agencies suggest it isn't required to have the national topic match these efforts, but there is a tremendous difference in the ability to call upon over 100 universities and thousands of students when there is an overlap. We don't often think of ourselves as generating discussion for outside groups, but I do think there are opportunities with some of the topics.

I will not make any promises, but I do think there is potential interest in the educational policy community to consider such approaches. It wont't be easy and it will require coaches to work hard to pursue such efforts (something I learned last year the hard way by failed efforts to arrange events related to the topic), but I wanted to encourage our community to start thinking about the way that our tremendous engine of topic research and the volume of our debates could be considered in a broader picture.

To be clear, I don't think just voting for any of the topics makes this happen. I just wanted folks to consider that if we pick a topic that allows our coaches to pursue substantial external communities there is the possibility of finding new ways to highlight the talents of our students.

States CP and Politics  - I think Jamie has a legitimate concern that many debates will be about process not substance. I tried to be clear that this is a long-standing problem which, to me, rises about normal concerns about specific arguments. If we even have a topic that reduces the federal role and we are still concerned about the States CP we have really lost sight of what a domestic topic  can be. The ag support topic provided some good information that we can engage these questions and I hope we can do so again. My bigger concern is not that education wins, but that at what point will this community ever consider a domestic (non-legal) topic because of the fear of the states CP? If we seriously won't even engage pro-active federal government topics because of this distortion of the policy literature I would strongly suggest we change argumentative and judging norms first. I tried to provide some suggestions about how we can utilize the key values of the federalism literature in the paper. I hope that offers a path forward for those interested in changing practice.

Thanks again for the great feedback. Please feel free to suggest your comments on this or any of the controversy proposals.

Gordon
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2010, 01:18:45 PM »

I agree with all of Gordon's arguments about the effect of the states counterplan on debate.

We simply must get off the states drug.  It massively distorts the literature base of every question where we ask for an increased federal role.  It turns debates into federal only signal warrants and soft power debates while preventing a focus on the merits of proposals like the education topic.  It significantly affects the range of topics we are even willing to consider in the first place, substantially curtailing the educational benefits students can receive from the activity.

It is time to reformulate our conceptions of FIAT and move debate back more toward real world controversies actually discussed in literature and not the magic of all 50 states taking the exact same action instantaneously. 



Logged
hansonjb
Full Member
***
Posts: 218



« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2010, 11:13:59 PM »

re states-process cplans: yep, they are killing off any aff topic specific ground other than add-ons for the fed process over states/process.

different fiat would be good--a couple of articles written specifically for use in debates with really strong args on how the states cplan damages debate might make a difference. and by strong--i mean have the typical ridiculous kritikal and policy wonk impacts needed to outweigh whatever the latest evidence is--including justifications for why debate scholars are better.

another way and one i'd urge the topic committee to consider: word the topic so that states counterplans are irrelevant. yep--they'd be unwieldy but lists topics are too and at least we are clearly solving a problem. eg "the usfg should xxxx even if states could do xxxx better."
Logged

jim hanson Smiley
whitman debate forensics speech rhetoric
nalexander
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2010, 10:06:30 AM »

I personally don't believe that the phenomena of putting "process over substance" is unique to the Education controversy. While the states cp will not be applicable to treaties, putting process over substance is a debate-wide phenomena that we do because we put competition over education. I don't think this is a reason to reject the Education topic, but is instead an example of a central problem in Policy Debate, which is our desire to put competitive success over education.

As for the states cp specifically, I think that is a debate that needs to be had. I think there are arguments to be made for why the Federal Government needs to take a role in reducing its own support for certain programs. Also, if the cp is "states will refuse to accept federal support for...", I don't see why that is mutually exclusive with "usfg will substantially decrease federal support for..." Timeframe permutation aside, theoretically you could have the state refuse at the same time as the usfg decreases (if this seems far-fetched, the state cp is just as far-fetched, honestly you could never get all 50 states to agree to not accept federal funding). I think they could both theoretically happen at the same time and the Permutation could soak up enough of the net-benefit. I think the cp is artificially competitive at best.
Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2010, 11:39:15 AM »

I'm glad that the focus of this forum has transformed into a more meta-issue discussion on process v. substance in debate. Still, I want to bring things back for a minute and ask what the call for 'substance over process' means in relation to the topic process. It seems that most of the topics that would interest Main St. America are those very same topics that are crippled by process counterplans. If we can somehow collectively reject process-based debate practices does that open the door for the kind of community-based co-sponsorship that I suggested in my previous posts? Is that something that we as a community are interested in moving towards?

My concern in relation to process counterplans, public recognition of debate and the education topic stems from a desire to be relevant to the average citizen, bringing into play the idea of 'debate lite' being something that can be exercised in public forums and spur interest in our topics external from our (ever-shrinking) community.

If we chose not to vote for the education topic because we simply don't like it compared to other topics, that's fine. My concern is that topics like education are rejected because we don't want to deal with process debates and aren't comfortable with the idea of smaller impacts. If that is the case, than those fears represent a systemic fault in the community. Good topics should not be rejected because we are unwilling to put our foot down on arguments that distort the literature and muddle debates.

Just a thought.

Taylor
Logged
rwevans
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2010, 09:25:27 PM »

I think the education topic paper is fantastic and I do not have any negative criticism of it.  I must admit, however, that the most exciting part of the paper for me was in reading the 1985-1986 NDT/CEDA topic: “That more rigorous academic standards should be established for all public elementary and/or secondary schools in the United States in one or more of the following areas:  language arts, mathematics, natural sciences.”

It seems to me that the states CP problem is hardly a states CP problem and more of a USFG/plan focus problem.  So long as the plan is the focus of the debate and the affirmative has the ability to capitalize and claim advantages based on process, the negative has to have reciprocal ground based in process.  So long as the plan is the focus of the debate, the affirmative must be forced to defend the entirety of the plan and the resolution.  Process CP’s are nothing more than theoretical tests of the affirmative plan that usually question the necessity of immediacy, certainty or the actor itself.  This is critical negative ground that you cannot just wish away by changing judge norms to arbitrarily include in arguments you like and arguments you don’t like.

First, all 50 states acting in concert is not magic!  There are all kinds of uniform acts adopted by all 50 states (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act).  Second, the states CP is hardly about the whether the states can/should do the plan, but whether the USFG must do the plan.  If the resolution says “the USFG should do X” I should only have to research those things should do.  The states CP allows me to center my research around the resolution by wholly dismissing those cases that don’t require federal action.  In essence, the CP provides a necessary limiting function on the topic.  Both of those are voting issues Wink

The topic paper does a good job of highlighting that the topic should focus around the desirability of neoliberal education programs.  Perhaps the resolution should be crafted to make this the center of the debate similar to the way in which the 85-86 topic centers the debate around rigorous academic standards.

Leaving the process up for grabs may be a more inclusive form of debate.  It doesn’t foreclose advocacy rooted in USFG action, but it doesn’t privilege that form of advocacy either.

Also, the topic paper and posts on this thread seem to me to be the most blatant acknowledgments that judges can arbitrarily create judging rules to legitimize certain arguments and delegitimize others such that all judging norms become suspect.

And, it seems to me to concede that judges have ultimate control over debate norms and the ultimate responsibility for making this activity more inclusive and diverse.  Re-examining the role of the USFG in the resolution is the more inclusive response to the states CP problem than an arbitrary rule that both explodes the negative research burden and undermines the heart of stable generic negative ground. 

The USFG is the big fat pink (yet lavender) elephant in the room.  I get that USFG is tradition, but so is the states CP.  You can’t destroy tradition for the sake of tradition. 

I say NO to USFG or YES to immigration 

I want my ground and I want my diversity.
Logged
llevaz
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2010, 02:05:17 AM »

I personally don't believe that the phenomena of putting "process over substance" is unique to the Education controversy. While the states cp will not be applicable to treaties, putting process over substance is a debate-wide phenomena that we do because we put competition over education. I don't think this is a reason to reject the Education topic, but is instead an example of a central problem in Policy Debate, which is our desire to put competitive success over education.

As for the states cp specifically, I think that is a debate that needs to be had. I think there are arguments to be made for why the Federal Government needs to take a role in reducing its own support for certain programs. Also, if the cp is "states will refuse to accept federal support for...", I don't see why that is mutually exclusive with "usfg will substantially decrease federal support for..." Timeframe permutation aside, theoretically you could have the state refuse at the same time as the usfg decreases (if this seems far-fetched, the state cp is just as far-fetched, honestly you could never get all 50 states to agree to not accept federal funding). I think they could both theoretically happen at the same time and the Permutation could soak up enough of the net-benefit. I think the cp is artificially competitive at best.

Even if both actions *could happen* at the same time, the CP competes based on net benefits not mutual exclusivity. The perm still links to politics because it requires FG action. Therefore, the counterplan alone is preferable.

I cant really think of an impact to the FG ending the program, that can't be solved by the states rejecting the funding, which is big enough to outweigh the impact of the politics DA. For example, even if FG action resulted in slightly better education than state action, the difference isn't enough to outweigh the failure to pass START (or whatever the DA at the time is).

- zavell
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 02:22:13 AM by llevaz » Logged
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2010, 10:00:03 AM »

I just want to go through the specifics of the argument of why uniform 50 state action is justified to refuse federal funding, using Rashad's example of the Uniform Commercial Code, etc.

First, good job on actually using some literature to justify this action:  this is well above and beyond most debates I see.

Second, I'm not sure I'm convinced, because the actions you are talking about are very different than passing say, a law about poverty mandating legal services for the homeless.  To be specific:

A) None of this justifies uniform state action in the specific instances of the AFF.  In the education context, none of this lit says "all 50 states should simultaneously refuse funding from the feds for education."  This is why it distorts the lit base to answer the counterplan--no one hypothesizes this action, therefore they don't write answers to it.  I wouldn't be as troubled by this if judges were more willing to listen to reasonable solvency deficits to the counterplan not backed by evidence (signaling, resources, federal administrative benefits, etc).  Sixteen years of coaching tells me judges aren't willing to listen to this.  Therefore, I think this is somewhat of a judging issue.
B) Let's go through the specifics of your example:  Specifically, you have now advocated individual, private actor FIAT.  To be specific:
"In the United States, a Uniform Act is a proposed state law drafted by the U.S. Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and approved by its sponsor, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)...The NCCUSL is a body of lawyers, both private practitioners and government attorneys; judges, both state and federal; and law professors, typically appointed by the governor of each state. The NCCUSL drafts laws on a variety of subjects and proposes them for enactment by each state, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. NCCUSL was established in 1892. The NCCUSL, while influential, does not have any direct legislative power itself; uniform acts become laws only to the extent they are enacted into law by state legislatures."

So now, the NEG is FIATING a private actor body full of lawyers, private practioners, law profs, etc.  In addition, the end of the evidence indicates that the laws only come into being when enacted into law by state legislatures.  This body CANNOT mandate that action, the states now have to decide to do it.

The AFF's FIAT is one action by the federal government--the NEG's is a private actor body followed up by all 50 state legislatures FIATing the same action.  WOW.  I thought 50 states was bad on its own, this is likely worse.

C) Way out of context of actions taken on actual topics.  Here's what is covered:  "Among the most influential uniform acts are the Uniform Commercial Code, Uniform Probate Code, Uniform Trust Code, Uniform Partnership Act, Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Uniform Arbitration Act, Uniform Environmental Covenants Act, Uniform Conservation Easements Act, Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. However, there are well over 100 uniform acts." 

So we've done this over 100 times in history.  And we've done it to create things like uniform rules for the way commerce happens.  I know that sounds like a justification for doing "any old action" through all 50 states, but the UCC isn't the same as the states taking an action on say "all 50 states will refuse federal funding on education" or "all 50 states will pass legislation for the homeless."

I'm willing to listen to the idea that someone has advocated expanding the UCC to areas like education, the environment, etc.  Perhaps there is a robust debate in law review literature I am unaware of (I am certainly willing to be educated, as Rashad has already educated me about the application of the UCC et al to the states debate). 

For now, I'm skeptical.  My primary concern is that teams use FIAT to distort the literature base surrounding the topic to FIAT the plan.  This means we only imagine a world that no one in the literature conceives of to make this happen.  Our debates become wildly distorted from the lit base on the topic, hurting topic specific education.

I am worried about the chilling effect that the power of counterplans like states has.  It means negatives are not encouraged to research specific answers to AFF's.  Why would they?  They can wish away the aff with a one sentence counterplan.  It's such a powerful weapon that huge areas of the topic become cordoned off, never having to be researched.

In addition, AFF teams are never encouraged to explore huge areas of topics.  Why would they?  They'll swoop away your new AFF with a sentence, so why bother researching the nitty gritty of these cases.

I am intrigued to learn more about the application of codes like the UCC to the states debate.  At a minimum, if NEG teams were willing to specify that far into the process, it might give the AFF some ground back, which I would be happy with.  An in-depth debate on the use of the NCCUSL to expand codes like the UCC would move our states debates ahead light years in my opinion.  Can you point me to some literature justifying the expansion of codes like the UCC to other areas?  Perhaps there is a robust debate I've been missing.

RG
Logged
DavidSeikel
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2010, 02:25:53 PM »

I have noted with interest the recent discussion about "Uniform State Laws."

Although I have no opinion with respect to the "states counterplan" controversy, I would like to offer suggestions for research about "Uniform State Laws."

First, very few of the "model acts" promulgated by the ULC/NCCUSL have been adopted by all fifty states.  I haven't verified this, but I believe that the Uniform Commercial Code may be the only one.  And, certain of the "model acts" have been adopted by only a few states.

Second, there is some variation in the specific provisions of  "model acts" that have been adopted by a number of states.  For example, various states have "tweaked" some of the sections of the Uniform Commercial Code.  Thus, a "Uniform State Law" may not be implemented "uniformly."

Third, "model acts" are not adopted simultaneously by states.  Actual implementation may be spread over many years after promulgation by the ULC/NCCUSL.

Fourth, similarly, the ULC/NCCUSL sometimes issues revised or updated versions of a "model act."  That can compound the lack of uniformity when the states that have adopted a "model act" do not simultaneously adopt the revised or updated version of it.  The Uniform Commercial Code is a prime example of this.

The website of the Uniform Law Commission would be a good place to begin research on those points:  http://www.nccusl.org/Update/Home_desktopdefault.aspx

And, I'm sure that there is a substantial body of literature on the "Uniform State Laws" "movement" in the law reviews and treatises.

Good luck!

David Seikel
Logged
rwevans
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2010, 02:47:17 PM »

1.  A private entity drafts uniform codes, but cannot enact them.  Saying that the states CP would require private fiat first is like saying that federal legislation drafted by a think tank for instance is private fiat.  This is a reach.

2.  No one advocates all states refusing federal funds?  Even after the stimulus debate?  One quick google search reveals otherwise:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/reject-state-bailouts/  It doesn't say ALL 50 states, DC, PR etc, but it is sufficient to constitute a solvency advocate.  Also, your interpretation would undermine the necessity of having a solvency advocate on the Aff side.  The Aff would never have to justify federal action, they would only need to provide a justification to act generally.

3.  FIAT distorts all debates, not just CP debates and certainly not just state CP debates.  You are exercising some very exacting scrutiny of state fiat, but the same can be said for the USFG.  What about the old Aspec argument that USFG never acts in concert such that any plan that fails to specify either does nothing or is incredibly abusive.  USFG fiat also requires fiating Supreme Court justices, agency members, etc.  A lot of your concerns approach could/would arguments that fiat is supposed to avoid by focusing the debate on should.  This courtesy is given to the Aff, why wouldn't you extend it to the negative?

4.  The question is not why WOULD the negative research certain topic areas, but why SHOULD the negative have to research these areas.  Is the topic not about FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY, not just EDUCATION POLICY?  If you remove the states CP option it removes the federal question all together.  This is a harsh result, especially since the CP only works against Affs that don't require federal action.  What is wrong with that?

-RW


Addendum:  if the negative runs the CP as 50 conditional or unconditional CPs, would that solve your problem?    How about one CP, with 50+ planks?  This seems plausible given the current state of debate and the popularity of multiple conditional CPs.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 03:12:45 PM by rwevans » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!