[eDebate] Fwd: Coalition of the list-supporter
Mon Jun 5 11:21:58 CDT 2006
For clarity's sake I'm not entirely compelled by the First Amendment topic
(because I still think it is large and I'm starting to think that if the
topic is going to be big it may benefit my squad to have it be super-big so
no one has any depth -- still thinking though), but I feel thrust into the
role as its defender since I worked on it.
Responding in order to the big points:
> Let me make an argument by authority: the folks who have debated or
coached on privacy seem to have less worries about the size of the
"lists" topics, than those who didn't. Who would have thought prior to
a week ago that those big topic folks like Stables, Galloway, Tim
O'Donnell and Mancuso would side with that crazy, boundary-less Warner
in support of lists that are bigger than the common area topic?
Response: First, Tim O'Donnell thought the "list topic" should be one case
so he should not be in that group -- I say this because I could feel him
wincing at the suggestion that he wanted a huge topic. Second, I wouldn't
be worried about redoing the privacy topic either...but the lists are all
privacy + a bunch of other areas. Third, to make my own argument by
authority, we previously debated the following topic:
RESOLVED: "That one or more presently existing restrictions on First
Amendment freedoms of press and/or speech established in one or more federal
court decisions should be curtailed or prohibited."
It's the other direction but the same lit. Based on that, I feel
comfortable saying that the community can find a good deal to say within
> I believe that the lists are not as big
as you suggest and the 1A topic is bigger than you suggest. I don't
think either will be large literature wise, although there is a lot of
literature about these cases. The reason is that we have solid and
predictable negative strategies which will functionally reduce the
literature size and make many of your arguments non-starters on the
affirmative and much more likely disad ground on the negative, which
shouldn't pose a problem.
Response: Perhaps. I do think that every topic is debateable at the end of
the day. I also would encourage people to stop using "lists" and "area"
because functionally it's a choice between areas of varying sizes.
As for the specific rounds:
>I) Topicality on decision- You are reading cards talking about the
precedential value of Morrison but not from the decision. In a riveting
c-x, Stitch asks Bob to read the part of the decision that talks about
gun control. Stitch says it doesn't, but my topicality arguments come
from the Malgor decision, where the court uses Morrison as precedent to
justify not having gun control. Louisville argues that there is a
difference between topicality cards from any Supreme Court decision
versus cards from Morrison.
Response: I'll use the most famous "overrule" scenario which is the Plessy
was overruled by Brown fact pattern. This T argument is analogous to saying
Brown isn't an overrule of Plessy because Plessy was about trains. In fact,
Plessy set a legal standard about the 14th Amendment -- perhaps in the
context of a transportation fact pattern -- but the decision is about the
14th Amendment. The Court overruled that decision in Brown by overruling
that legal standard. Under your T interpretation, Brown would not have been
a topical case if Plessy had been on this list topic pre-1954. Morrison's
fact pattern is about domestic violence just as Plessy's was about trains,
but the case is about the power of the federal government to legislate over
the states just as Plessy was really about the 14th Amendment
>II) Counterplan- Overrule Lopez or the later decision. Make arguments
that Morrison should remain intact for X reasons, all net benefits
Response: Perm - do both. I cannot imagine the literature that says Lopez
was wrong and Morrison was right. Likewise any overrule of Lopez that I can
envision would overrule Morrison too.
>III) Gender K - You commit violence against womyn by using Morrison and
ignoring core issues of the case.
Response: Fair, though many domestic violence advocates would disagree as
they are attacking every fact pattern that could result in an overrule of
Morrison. This is classic K ground though where pragmatism and idealism
collide. I think this is a fair debate for Affs to have.
> I) Extra topicality debate. Same as above. Plan has to amend Morrison
in some way to ADD GUN CONTROL language. Since not in original Morrison
decision, it's extra topical.
Response: Advantages are extra now? The plan text is overrule the Morrison
decision that limits the powers of Congress under the commerce clause and
Section 5. Everything else is just an advantage to that.
> II) Counterplan out gun control and debate VAWA straight up. With
whatever disadv, k's, case turns as net benefits you'd normally use.
Response: How? The Court writes its decision that CC and Section 5 powers
are curtailed except in the area of gun control? To go back to the prior
real world example this is the CP to say "CP out that education be
integrated and debate segregated transportation straight up." I don't know
where those cards will be. To be fair, you could hang your hat on a
Congressional revocation of the Court's jurisdiction to review gun control
decisions -- this would focus the debate on the fallout of Congress making
that drastic decision and that would be a fair debate.
> [Regarding First Amendment being big generally]
Response: First Amendment is big. The only defense of it over the other
"list" topics (which are, again, multi-area topics) is that it is one lit
base and thus provides the Neg one body of law to master rather than all
privacy, all federalism, all Exec. Authority, all racial discrimination lit,
all abortion lit, etc.
> Extra-topicality: You can't specify what content is permissible. You
can only overrule the decision
Response: This is not how the Court works (well maybe in a very limited
sense if they summarily overrule and provide no written decision). The
Court overrules by setting new standards. The Neg needs to debate the worth
of these new standards, meaning the specific form of speech limited by the
Aff is important only as additional advantages to the standard. Once again
I would drop a team on this argument because the Aff plan is topical, they
are just reading other advantages to that plan.
> Counterplan- Legislatively just ban the conferderate flag.
Response: But you can't do that, because the Court says that such
legislation is forbidden by their interpretation of "Congress shall make no
law" and until the Court changes that Congress can't do it (unless we're
only talking about banning the confederate flag as part of a state flag.
They could do that perhaps, but why would the Aff be so limited?).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman