Michael R. Dickman
Mon Oct 5 07:25:55 CDT 1998
Wouldn't the answer ddepend on why the author concludes courts should interpret? suppose the author says or assumes that a republican led congress or a dysfunctional pres would not pass a law so the author defaults to the courts? In debate we have fiat (or at least we used to) and we can (hypothetically) get around these problems of should vs. would. The question is, how do you tell how the author would conclude if she/he were in "debate world"?
From: selliott at SELU.EDU[SMTP:selliott at SELU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 12:13 AM
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Negative? Yup.
I've noticed many affirmative teams committing a "border-line" evidence ethics violation. Now, hear me out. I ain't calling anybody a liar or naming names. But
a lot of the literature I have read--the law reviews--usually conclude that the courts should solve the problem by reinterpreting T7 a particular way. How would the community feel about teams calling someone out on this and labeling it as a voter. If their solvency advocate supports a judicial solution over a legislative solution, then isn't there a context problem?
More information about the Mailman