Skip to content
June 11, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

In means throughout and thinking about parametics and answers

From someone who has been in the game a while….since before you were born….

The nature of parametrics kind of gets them out of this.

There is the idea of “subsets” versus the full resolution. I think that usually applies in the case of “substantial” being in resolution–I
don’t fully recall. I’ve only seen subsets a couple times……and my mind is hazy.

But you can look at the theory of parametics… could also use logical fallacies to answer this.
In CEDA they used to run Hasty G.

This is old school theory in one sense, but given your situation… can at least make the argument.
Its kind of like a backfile check type-argument….
but in the area of theory.

And you have to have 5 cases that meet. Period. If you don’t have 5 cases that meet–its game over with any halfway decent critic or halfway decent team. You have to have fair division of ground or their isn’t a debate or education.

There could also be an argument (for the aff) somehow around….we are still throughout (ie we are the law of the land). There is no place where our policy doesn’t apply. It just specifies geographies. Theres probably some part of your argument that answers this–its a slippery & ambiguous way around your definition….but not your standards……if that makes any sense.

Just my 2 cents.

Are you going to nationals….running this strategy?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: