[eDebate] Areas vs. list, let's look at just onelistedcase to overturn.
Tue Jun 6 14:29:01 CDT 2006
I think in the debate you are having with Scott you are correct, the naysayers discount the power of the negative counterplan. I at first had that as my main reservation but you did a great judge dispelling it. But, I am still concerned by Tripp's criticism. Your answer of the t argument I think is inaccurate.
I am willing to agree there is one decision in Morrison: affirmed. But, there are several arguments Rehnquist walks through and must walk through in order to reach that decision. An affirmative would only need to dispel one of those arguments to OT the decision and reach a new one: reversed. These different tacts all create different advantage grounds and they all meet your test of a valid interpretation being grounded in the case itself. I will only list about half of what I find in an effort to hold on to some arguments for my own squad.
The aff could decide Rehnquist's concern with the substantial effects is test is unwarranted. Rehnquist does not seem to dismiss the test (evidence by Thomas' concurrence) but merely finds that it would open the floodgates to a national police force. I get the sense that this unease on his part is why he flippantly dismisses the issue as not having a substantial effect. An affirmative could follow Souter's dissent here and say, "Yes, it does open the floodgates but oh well, people shouldn't be raping" (accidentally insert another 'p' here (rapping) and you have an anti-hip-hop aff) other people. That affirmative is in the literature and does OT the one singular decision.
The aff could also dismiss Rehnquist's reading of section 5 of the 14th Amendment. This argument is also presented in the dissents and would reverse the decision yet yield a whole new set of affirmative advantage areas.
There are some small readings that could be done. The decision could be reversed because Brzonkala was not from Virginia and therefore there was a direct effect on interstate commerce as a result of the lack of action for which she intially sought the VAWA remedy. This would link to nothing, as the Rehnquist decision would remain in tact but yet the affirmation of the dismissal of Brzonkala's action would be reversed. This aff is scary as it would not change anything about the world except that Morrison, a rapist, would owe his victim some money to which she is entitled. The neg would have to pray to get a critic in the Repko school where there is never zero link, because the Commerce Clause Bad and Equal Protection Bad arguments would have zero link.
There are a couple more aff ideas I have just from reading the opinions and without getting into articles about the decision. Casey particularly concerns me because of its complexity and length. I would like to hear, however, from supporters of the 1A area res about why that would be a fun res to debate for a whole year. Honestly, even though I do not think the 'list' topics are particularly small as some might think, I do not see how the 1A topic would not make me not want to not cut my wrists with a dull knife halfway through GSU. I just think you are too quick to say Tripp's concerns are dealt with by Topicality.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman