[eDebate] Supreme Court Topic wording issues

Darren Elliott delliott
Wed May 10 01:33:03 CDT 2006


Good discussion starter JT!  My thoughts are below.

>>> J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> 05/09/06 2:30 PM >>>
1. one big area ("law enforcement", 1st Amendment/free speech, federalism)
R. That the Supreme Court should overturn one or more of its decisions to substantially increase 1st amendment protections
R. That the Supreme Court should overturn one or more of its decisions to substantially reduce law enforcement authority.

Chief chimes in:
Given a cursory reading of the literature, the above suggestions are intriguing. The question is would it be much more manageable than the suggestion below ala Europe.  I literally cringed when I read that.  More on that below.  I think the above may satisfy the non-list folks, and remain broad enough for those wanting a lot of Aff flexibility.  However the wording would need to be tinkered with.  I understand you werent meaning these to be perfect.  But my initial reading concerns "to substantially increase 1st amendment protections".  My concern is the modifying article.  Is the resolution suggesting the SC overturn a case that was meant to increase 1st amend. prot. thereby the aff is meant to decrease said protection, OR is the resolutional intent to have the Supremes overturn a case that previously limited thereby the aff is increasing 1st amend. prot.?  The same concern is true for the "to substantially reduce law enforcement authority" resolution.

JT continues:
2. a list of say 5-7 areas (too allow many cases and diverse topics...a la the Europe topic)
R. That the Supreme Court should overturn one of its decisions in one or more of the following areas: x,y,z,w,q

Chief:
The Europe topic was a nightmare.  If we went this route my recomendation would be a list of cases in AN area OR a list of the specific cases.  Some of the original discussion about courts that I heard folks make at last years meeting was something like "The SC should overturn one or more of the following case......" with the belief being that those cases be landmark or foundational decisions.  If that is the route then it is more manageable.  It would not be wise to say: The SC should overturn one or more decision in one or more of the following areas: 1st amendment protection, law enforcement authority, medical rights, etc.  (Not sure if that is what you mean by a al Europe but that was my initial read). 

JT:
3. a list of 3 areas (a little broader in nature compared to the larger list)

Chief:
Maybe something we could tackle.  I want to get a better feel for the lit. and how big it would be.

JT:
4. A list within an area:
 R. That the Supreme Court should overturn one or more of its decisions to substantially reduce law enforcement authority.

Chief:
An old standby that may be what the community defers to.

I will say initially I am interested in either:
A topic that lists specific SC cases (dealing with different areas of the law)
A topic that picks AN area of the law and asks for SC action in that area
Perhaps a topic that limits to 2-3 areas of the law and asks for SC action

Not in favor as of yet a topic that:
Picks more than 3 areas of the law and asks for SC action

thanks,
chief

Darren Elliott
Director of Debate--KCKCC
CEDA 2nd VP Elect






More information about the Mailman mailing list