We now have TWO model cases for the Clinic: Danny (and Rep. Oberstar) vs. the GOP!

Representative John L. Mica, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has prepared and posted a de facto Affirmatice case and Plan which he calls “A National Strategic Transportation Plan. (NSTP)” Without necessarily intending to do so, Congressman Mica has “substantially” satisfied all of the traditional debate requirements for preparaing a case and plan this topic. (His press release announcing the NSTP is a de facto 1AC.) Please go to this website and examine it CAREFULLY:

http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/File/111th/NSTP.pdf

I just don’t wana talk about it at all when I am on the aff. I don’t care if it is the 1ac, 1nc, or 1ar I just don’t wana deal with T on the aff. If I were on the neg I will be sure to have some swag interp where you will never be T. It is just a belief that was ingrained on me by my coach.

I think that by the end of the year I will have a 1AC that will remind you of a ADS. That would make me happy and I would be happy to give it to anyone for PRP. This may take a little collab. but I think we can pull it off. CU-Boulder had the best crazy case last year this year so-cal can have the funniest case.

I like to think of it like a Persuasive round, and I think the best speakers give more context to their citations in those rounds too.

Regarding the introduction – I was taught that it’s a way to preempt topicality. You introduce the subject and try to be the first one out of the gate proving your case is topical. It at least gives you some defense in the 1AR against a topicality position.

Also, as any theory of public address will tell you, an introduction will help the audience (and judge) understand the context of your case/speech. Given that many of the judges throughout the year will not have had a substantial number of rounds judging the event combined with the fact that it would not be very difficult to write a new 1AC for every tournament, an introduction can get everyone up to speed.

It can also serve as a way to introduce some humor in the round when the rest of the case is serious… judges/audiences like humor =)

I see LD as a slower CEDA where you cannot run topical CP’s. Where do you think we got all of our theory from? The only thing that should be different is adding in specifics to LD like no backside rebuttals or whatever.

Some of my cites, under old school rules, would take 10 seconds at a ‘normal rate of speed’ to say. So, having the short cite makes me happier. I may go back and add an introduction, lol. The idea of an introduction in LD never dawned on me, but I can see how it may help in a round where I won’t be able to use my parli/ceda judge case format. Thanks for the idea on that one Danny!

If there is a problem with an author’s credentials, the burden should be on the negative to point that out, not for the judge and/or audience to intervene based off of assumptions that may or may not be correct.

My prefence would be: “Joe Smith, professor of political science at Dartmouth, in 2008″: or words like it. Rationale: if the judge/audience is not actually going to read the card, they should be presented with sufficient infomation to know what makes a person is “qualified.” The extra 2 seconds in actually speaking this info is, at least IMHO, justified.

Regardless of the school of thought, however, I think most – if not all – judges want enough info actually on the card so that it can be verified if challenged on “ethics” grounds.

At NFA Nationals, oral citation of evidence such as “Smith in ’08:” was the norm, not (alas) the exception. And nobody looks at evidence unless there is a charge of an ethics violation.

BTW…

RE NFA-LD Rules: I judged NFA-LD extensively last year. I did not vote once on the basis of ANY rules violation (although they were violated in every round I judged), and I don’t have any personal knowledge of any debate that was decided on the basis of a rules violation. Also, please be aware that there is a MAJOR difference in NFA policy between a “rules violation” and an “ethics violation.” More on Monday.

Remember we cannot use short cites in LD, you have to have author’s full name, title of piece, source, and year, we wouldn’t want to break LD rules, now would we?

By using the full card instead of ellipses you have better consistency and you take less time for sources. That one source is used for cards 1 and 3 of Inh, so instead of double citing and reading the 2nd card just read it all the way though for a more consistent story and also improving time allocation. Then you repeat the card in harms 1, why not just have observation 1 – background, put in 2 cards… Smith and the House card then hop to observation 2 – the plan?

The cool thing about LD is that you don’t have to prove inherency in the 1ac, it says that you can provide it later if you are challenged. However, your harms card has inherency built in so having a whole section built around inherency and then a whole section built around harms doesn’t seem to have as much purpose. Really, all DA’s are inherency arguments for the 1ac. You piss off Russia by investing in Cuba.. Hello, instant access to inherency.

I understand that few people share my vision of what debate is but there is no reason why it won’t work well in LD.

I especially think the 40k ppl die thing is a big weakness in the case. Hopefully over the course of the season more specifics will be written about the act so the cards can be made stronger.

I do think the private-public partnerships are a part of STA Act – I think the reforming the DOT card talks about that but I may be wrong.

Thanks for your criticism – hopefully it will help new debaters who are thinking about running this case.