[eDebate] a defense of cases over areas

gabe murillo gabejmurillo
Fri May 26 17:56:08 CDT 2006


mind as well start this now, cases over areas: 

1.	Limits ? I think that the China topic and the
Greece/Turkey section of the Europe topic need be to
defended before people can defend the concept that
?areas? will place an adequate limit on the topic. How
do these areas work as terms of art? I?m curious what
T debates would look like, who decides which area
cases fall under? ACLU may argue something is a 1st
amendment case, a district court may say its privacy,
etc (this is honestly a question for area supporters
b/c I have no idea how this classification would
work). 

2.	Balanced Aff and Neg Ground ? the aff should get
sweet cases, and I think that the balance for this is
the ability of the negative to have a predictable base
of literature to research. Galloway is totally correct
(me, Galloway eye to eye
 something is strange here ?)
in his assessment that the way to beat a case as good
as Morrison is to have the time to produce flexible
sweet strategies that are specific to the affirmative.
I didn?t debate on the treaties topics, but I watched
some rounds and heard some stories, and people can
correct me if I?m wrong, but the depth of negative
strategies seems to have been pretty impressive. An
?areas? topic robs the negative of these predictable
strategies, (call me crazy but ?area X good/bad? does
not seem like the ground you want to beat well written
affs on these topics.) I envision the best affs (at
least the ones that can answer CPs) on this topic
being about the cases themselves, with the area being
a secondary concern.  
  
3.	AT: Aff flexibility ? I guess my question is how
much is necessary? My first concern with the
flexibility argument is that I don?t think it has
uniqueness in the area vs. cases debate. Even with an
areas resolution flexibility will be restrained by
what we can debate, what cases we can talk about etc,
so I don?t see how the additional restrictions on
flexibility outweigh the magnitude of ground and
strategy helpers that cases give negatives over an
areas topic.  Furthermore, aff flexibility is in the
eye of the beholder, and I think calls to flexibility
sometimes ignore the potential for aff creativity. I
think that creative engagements with topical actions
can produce a lot of flexibility on any topic, and
people calling for aff flexibility should not ignore
the flexibility allowed under any topic even the China
topic (examples: Dartmouth BM?s defense of economic
pressure, Whitman BM?s City of Refuge Aff, and the
Death Drive). The example I can think of for this
resolution is sitting down with each of the cases
listed and creating an affirmative around something in
the decision you can really ?latch onto?. Galloway?s
post on Morrison and Ed Lee?s (two words Ed
 short
shorts
 I guess that?s more like one word repeated)
post on abortion cases show that there are a plethora
of defenses of different cases, and I?m sure upon
reading the justifications for cases anyone can find
lots of room for flexibility in the advantage that you
claim.  

these are just my initial thoughts,       

gabe murillo
wayne state 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 





More information about the Mailman mailing list