Happened to us recently as well. Before the round my team went in and asked. Came out and said "they are running new". I asked my team what subsidies had this school run on the topic. We isolated 4. I went in and asked team and coach does the 1AC in this round talk about any subsidies you have talked about before. The answer was "no specific subsidies are mentioned in the 1AC and we are just now putting it together". They did look hurried and I took that last part to mean, we'd rather finish this then answer questions. So I retreated to the hallway assuming it would be brand new and likely weird.
I told my team that if they ran an aff that wasnt really new to make an ethics argument in the round. 1AC was an exact argument not only run on both sides of the topic by this school in multiple years but was run on the AFF this year at another tournament against us. My team was pissed--made their ethics argument and ended up winning on some other stuff. I thought it was shady to say the least. Same tournament another team discloses their advantage. Says its just poverty, no death cited in the 1AC, poverty in general and nothing else. No other case impacts--we asked. We continued to probe knowing at other tournaments they had really run an advantage that mentioned poverty but was all about ethics and morality. They held firm on poverty only despite the probing. Most of the 1AC was the ethics and the 2AC, 1AR and 2AR were all about ethics and poverty was said 3 times. I flowed the whole debate. Poverty was not the only advantage/impact to the 1AC. We were smart enough to run a CP that solved all the aff--even their ethics silliness. But again, seemed shady at the least and was frustrating. I share Justin's angst here. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Justin Green <[email protected]> 01/30/09 6:10 PM >>> Kansas State has encountered 2 different schools who have run the same (nearly all=90%) aff as they did in years previous. team 1: One school was very upfront "we are going to run the same aff that "x" team did 2 years ago". team 2: Another said "it's new" and said a very similar aff that 1 of the members had run before. In neither of the instances did the exact text of the resolution have much to do with the argument advanced. In other words, the resolution excluded "insert similar subject here" in very similar manners. The resolution was talked about very little. Is there a need to disclose affs that are very similar to previous topics? curious if my very minor degree of angst with team 2 is shared by others, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
