[eDebate] Cases v. Areas

A Reed andreareed2007
Sun May 28 21:03:08 CDT 2006

Couple things I wanna chime in?  People aren't really assessing which
is a WORSE choice for the aff/neg, a topic of cases or of areas.  Yes,
there will be ground issues with both, but I think Cases is better for
both sides.  Here's why:

1.	Aff  Ground- "Aff creativity" is more unpredictable under areas.
Aff says: "But isn't that the point?"  Yes, to some extent, but there
is a difference between aff creativity which is grounded in the
literature versus being totally contrived (IS WOT "law enforcement"?
Is the ADA "health law"? to refer to previous examples).   Under
Cases, yes, Roe could be overturned for several different reasons, but
those are all discussed for the most part by legal scholars.  You
aren't going to see people overturning Roe based on the 17th or 21st
amendments (composition of the Senate, repeal of prohibition).  That
just doesn't make sense.  Plus the "overturn several ways" problem
increases neg CP ground too.  Under areas, people are going to run to
smaller, less known decisions.  This could be fixed by saying
"currently on the docket" or "landmark" cases? but come on, then we
are really just implicitly writing cases back in the topic again, just
in a roundabout way.

I thought about if listing cases limits the aff TOO much for new affs
at the middle and end of the year, you certainly can argue this, but I
think the treaties topic debunks the idea that only having 4-5
mechanisms total screws the aff?.

Neg ground- in response to people's worries about the numerous ways to
overturn any one decision, I feel its just more likely people will be
ready to debate those alternative grounds than a possible alternative
subject within any given area.  For example, you may not be ready to
debate the substance parental notification (area within abortion), but
you prolly will have something in your tubs about to respond to the
new due process ADV (other CPs, at least some DA links!) to someone's
new law enforcement case where you don't have a specific case hit.

Im not sure if JT's post on the first amendment is supposed to make me
want or hate the first amendment, but I sure as hell know I don't want
just "first amendment" in the rez anymore?.  Im not sure why that's an
argument FOR areas?. If you arg is artificially underlimiting bad
within areas, it seems like the best course is NOT to use areas if we
decide the most broad term is, well, too broad.

2.	Uncertainty in which sets a better limit- I know, this is an
extension of #1?not only will "law enforcement" end up being bigger
than just saying "mapp v ohio" or "terry" but I'm not even sure we CAN
tell how MUCH bigger areas will be before we've done a year of
research.  I don't want to vote for something that I cannot honestly
even discern its size.  Gabe argued this as certain, Cases more
limiting than areas? but I just don't know how you are supposed to
judge that.  We could specify even more beyond "law enforcement" or
"executive power"?. But then why aren't we just specifying decisions!

3.	Cases solve the term of art problems discussed in other posts.  I
think this should be taken pretty seriously.  Most definitions of
"abortion" aren't going to be attempting to define it as an area of
law.  Plus, we also risk leaving out important issues discussed in the
literature (Gabe's example of "reproductive health" instead).  We
debated a similar topic in HS a while back, increase privacy
protection in the area of: search and seizure, medical records,
consumer protection, ect? and let me tell you, those areas set almost
no limit.  In fairness, that is also probably because HS debate is
just worse, but its something to be worried about.

4.	Subsets T debates? "You didn't regulate ALL abortions?" I can hear
it now, I actually already saw Wallace's new Subsets file at his house
the other day?. *Shudder*? enough said.

5.	How do we chose areas?  Im afraid of another repeat of Europe
(while I am not a list hater, I can agree some points on the list were
too big)? Lets all be honest here, areas topics ARE LIST TOPICS, just
MUCH BIGGER!! Which I thought we all agreed sucked.  I don't know if I
agree with Roy that it should be just ONE area? my gut tells me that's
overcompensating TOO much? but then again? how do we chose just 2 or
3?  I feel a lot of the topic papers are very informative, but maybe
not? I dunno? comparative enough?..

Anyways, two last thoughts?.

1.	on the "rule in alternate ways" issue? the only thing terminally
problematic thing about this is that it creates bidirectionality? I
think if we could find a way to control the direction, then this would
be the good kind of aff flex people are looking for?

2.	I agree with Roy that we should all be more seriously considering
the executive authority area? no one (at least on edebate, if its on
the blog, I must've missed it) is really talking up this option? those
of us who don't wanna be going for deont on the aff every debate
should be speaking up?  I think there are a bunch of people who are
now exciting to be debating social issues so Im not going to pretend
that that could ever win as the ONLY area in a topic?. But it should
be included!!!



More information about the Mailman mailing list