College Policy Debate Forums
June 24, 2017, 06:01:55 PM *
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: topic wording proposal  (Read 924 times)
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« on: June 14, 2017, 02:07:00 PM »

I submitted a wording proposal to the topic committee.  I am posting it here to allow for questions, open discussion, etc. 

* topic wording proposal 2017.docx (26.45 KB - downloaded 355 times.)
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2017, 07:20:12 PM »

Responding to some concerns that have been raised so far.  Doc attached.

* Wording Proposal - 2017 - 2AC.docx (19.08 KB - downloaded 146 times.)
Logged
V I Keenan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2017, 04:14:10 PM »

Meeting Live Stream Link?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 04:29:05 PM by V I Keenan » Logged
BManuel
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2017, 05:10:32 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb67p2aR2hk
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 01:31:50 PM »

it seems like there are three possibilities:
1) rejecting traditional resolutional action is really bad bc it leaves certain populations without HC, and so it is ethical and desirable to endorse traditional resolutional action
2) rejecting traditional resolutional action will not leave certain populations without HC bc there is some alt that will solve outside the state
3) rejecting traditional resolutional action leaves certain populations without HC, but that is outweighed by the downside/s of endorsing traditional resolutional action (state bad etc)

it seems like anyone with an opinion about HC has to accept one of those three statements.  I can't imagine how clarifying those choices and then letting people to choose which of those positions they would like to defend (they can defend any of them) could possibly be bad from any stance that is concerned with principles, ethics, or education.

i have received some more concerns that sound a lot like "but traditional resolutional action is toooo good, no one could credibly defend that it's bad!"......I hope you can see why i fend that statement so frustrating.
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 04:24:50 PM »

So, to be clear....we are going to have a resolution where the aff is expected and required to defend action by the USFG because.....that is what the radical left resistance insisted upon??? 
Logged
BManuel
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 09:40:00 PM »

The TC's reaction to your proposal was it that it was a way to highlight and protect traditional teams (terms such as mutual exclusivity/radical politics, etc) and didn't benefit and possibly would cause harm to non traditional teams who didn't want to propose instrumental USFG action but also didn't want to be a complete break from/anti institutional.  I think the TC felt the sequencing DA + Perm were still things that the non traditional teams should be able to leverage in a round.  I personally believe your thesis was correct and I think more time could have been given to your proposal.  However, it seemed to be deemed to late breaking to be dealt with and pretty much disregarded as a result.  There was a pretty lengthy online debate which had way more involvement than the topic process/resolution wordings themselves had.

Logged
jstidham
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2017, 09:04:43 AM »

I'm going to slightly disagree with B Manuel's characterization of what happened at the TC meeting regarding the Strauss proposal. These are my views and don't necessarily reflect everyone's opinion on the TC. First and foremost, the timing was just bad. That's something we all agreed on. If Strauss would have made his proposal available a month ago, we would have had time to devote attention to it. It is not something we can just throw onto the ballot and see what happens. Any proposal requires a substantial amount of vetting. There were MANY phrases in that proposal that made us pause. "Radical politics" of "categorically reject", are some examples. It took us three days to settle on a slate of traditional resolutions. We would need an entirely separate meeting just to discuss the Strauss proposal. Secondly, the proposal didn't seem to make anyone happy other than a few folks who posted on Facebook. Yes, I understand the point isn't to make everyone happy. But many K teams who read non-plan affs spoke out and had manyyy issues with the proposal, which seems to disprove the Strauss thesis that the double resolution is an obvious solution to the polarization of debate. This is where I slightly disagree with B Manuel. We didn't just conclude that the Strauss proposal only protected traditional teams. We didn't devote much time to it, and I won't speak for everyone, but the general consensus was that it was a mess for all teams and there was no time for the TC to do the work to figure out a way to make it viable. Even the folks who tried to campaign on Facebook for the proposal to be included ended up conceding that there were a lotttttt of problems that we need to work out to try again next year, which the TC would probably be open to hearing. If there was another proposal submitted next year shortly after the NDT, I bet there would be enough time and energy available to make it an option.

Jasmine Stidham
UCO Debate
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!