Resolutions

I know a long time ago we agreed to allow the affirmative to frame their own position and to have the other side be forced to go along with it, but I think this needs to be reconsidered.It is irritating to accept a debate with arguments in mind, just to have the affirmative pull a total 180 with their own interpretation of the resolution.

The most annoying thing right for me right now though, would be to get in a debate, and to have a term in the resolution narrowed in scope considerably by the affirmative.

Crow: I know a long time ago we agreed to allow the affirmative to frame their own position and to have the other side be forced to go along with it
I didn't know this.

Bi0Hazard: It was a couple discussions I instigated, and there ended up being universal consensus with everyone I asked.

Crow: Sounds ridiculous if you ask me.

Bi0Hazard: It isn't totally unfounded. There is another scenario in which two people get in a debate, and fight throughout about what position is legitimate.

I am more concerned about finding a solution to when the affirmative tries to shift the debate tremendously, to the point where the resolution isn't really describing what is actually being debated.

Crow: That's called "squirreling" and has never been acceptable. Aff is said to have a "semi-divine right of definition" in debating parlance, meaning they can define the topic so long as they do not contradict what judges call the "spirit of the motion".

admin: That's called "squirreling" and has never been acceptable.
That's what I thought.