[eDebate] potential wording paper: first amendment vs national security
Pacedebate at aol.com
Wed May 10 23:48:18 CDT 2006
I'm contemplating writing a wording paper.
Here is the rough breakdown....this is a very off the cuff, rough outlining
of what I'm thinking....right now I'm just looking for some feedback on the
area and the structure.
Resolved: that the United States Supreme Court should rule an act of the
executive branch/congress unconstitutional specifically holding that the first
amendment should take precedence over national security concerns.
Potential aff areas:
computers (carnivore/pen register, cryptography, website regulation, shutter
terrorism/terror talk/securitization (patriot act library/terrorist
organization provisions, wiretapping, open trials/media access, use of secret
religion (in the military)
immigration (creppy directive, use of secret evidence)
dissent good the first amendment makes it possible, national security
Freedom of Information Act
Negative: agent counterplans, different grounds counterplans, national
security DA's, rights triv, all the bad court da's are unique in this context,
Here are some things someone posting to the blog said might be important:
Five years ago I would have never supported a topic that gave the aff this
much wiggle room. But the neg is doing just fine these days despite the fact
that for some teams/squads the resolution is just a way for them to win debates
because T is genocide.
where was i...oh yeah, this resolution gives the aff a LOT of flexibility
but the neg has some pretty good options. The rights triv argument might be
worse than the court DA's BUT coupled with an equal protection counterplan or
privacy cp or just have congress/the executive branch do the plan the neg
doesn't need a good DA to win. Aff teams that stray too far from core first
amendment justifications will/should often lose to these counterplans. A nice bonus
is that the grounds counterplans have a good literature base.
If there is a massive uproar that this topic is too big I could produce a
narrow version but I don't think it would win.
even the marginally competent neg should be able to win uniqueness that the
courts consistently ignore the first amendment whenever the government
whispers national security.
the aff gets to say the government is jacking our civil liberties in the
name of a phantom quest to create national security.
see aff list above - if the aff wants to engage material from the front page
of today's newspaper they can.
P.S. The blog has some good stuff on it. It helped me clarify what I thought
my wording should look like and I suspect anything you like about the
resolution I've created really came from something stolen from the blog.
P.S. #2 The plenary power literature referenced in Lindsay Harrison's post
could make for a sweet topic - if someone isn't working on a paper in that area
they should be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman