[eDebate] Which topic?
Sat Jul 1 13:23:24 CDT 2006
yea, conner/gabe, clearly i still love you guys, just
wasnt as sure if you'd agree with my assessment or
not which is why i didnt include you.
As i predicted, conner disagreed
Glad you agree though gabe, and to apologize for not
including you ill just say - i love you worst
and jennings may be a junior but anybody who utilized
a mr coffee in such a genious manor deserves to be
bumped up to senior status.
one more think about people who think that hamad
invalidates quirin advantages....there is this thing
that hopefully most people know about, its called the
it allows the neg to get rid of any aff's advantages
based off minor changes to hamad by overturning quirin
and ensure that affs have to be ready for the entirity
of the detention/geneva debate that the framers
Once again ill say, PLEASE VOTE FOR THE
quirin/morrison/casey/millikin rez. and SPEAK out in
favor of it.
--- gabe murillo <gabejmurillo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I largely agree with Brett,
> the concern about the ability of
> to limit the topic makes the smaller lists a no risk
> option. if people are correct that judges will not
> naturally limit the topic, then we need a small base
> of cases to begin with. If others are correct and
> topic will not get out of control, 4 cases still
> provides ample room for aff creativity, especially
> given the nature of the four cases on the second
> of 4 cases (ex parte quirin casey milikin and
> morrison). I disagree that gratz and milikin provide
> the same educational benefit (these aff's are more
> complicated then just "racism bad"), but I think
> brett's conclusion is correct. let "policy teams"
> quirin (I don't think any K teams would complain
> debate against this aff), but make sure to protect
> against too large of a topic.
> I think conor's fear that ex parte quirin casey
> milikin and morrison do not provide a diverse amount
> of legal issues to debate is a little exaggerated,
> morrison is about more then just VAWA, milikin
> accesses a lot of interesting legal issues, and
> provides a wealth of diverse legal issues to debate.
> don't think that this concern is a reason to risk a
> larger topic.
> I do think it is sad that there isn't a smaller
> with the death penalty aff. I think this is an
> incredably important issue. but I don't think it
> justifies a) excluding quirin or b) a list with 8
> and as far as education goes, I stick with my claim
> from my previous post that the most educational
> to do is to allow aff diversity to stem from aff
> advantage creativity. especially given the
> of the cases, and the general lack of knowledge
> how the supreme court works. give people 4 cases and
> let them figure out how to produce an affirmative
> can latch on to. ex parte quirin casey milikin and
> morrison provide plenty of room for teams to be
> creative. and the research skills and critical
> thinking that is necessary for this creatitivity is
> one of the greatest avenues for education.
> I think its important to include quirin. after years
> of talking about exclusion I think it would be short
> sighted for people to try to exclude traditional
> impact teams from having access to an aff they
> weighing that concern against concerns about the
> of the topic makes ex parte quirin casey milikin and
> morrison the best list of cases.
> another excluded senior :) getting his "voice out"
> gabe murillo
> wayne state
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Mailman