[eDebate] Topic Discussion - Areas vs. Cases

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Sun May 21 23:58:35 CDT 2006


I would agree with Kelly and Jim but that would probably send everyone
running the other way....so um, areas rule :)

Josh


On 5/22/06, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:
>
> i agree with kelly.
>
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kelly young" <kel1773 at msn.com>
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Topic Discussion - Areas vs. Cases
>
>
> Hello--
>
> I would strongly support a "case" approach simply because I really fear
> the
> direction that an "area" approach might generate. Actually, I guess I am
> opposed to the idea of a "one or more" area resolution.
>
> 2 concerns about the area resolution as suggested (I know it's not finally
> wording yet):
>
> 1. Just one of these areas would present an unrealistic amount of cases to
> debate. On a broad level, an area like "religious freedom" includes just
> about every Native American case, academic freedom, prison religious
> practice, religious symbols and holidays, individual practices that are
> labeled "religious", etc. Adding to this is the problem of overrule one
> precedent in any of these cases. We could overrule evidentary burdens,
> presumptions, ultimate findings, etc. in any of these cases. If the aff
> can
> focus on a singular precedent established by any of these cases, then we
> could debate about any area outside of RF that's been affected by
> precedent
> by decisions in that area.
>
> 2. Having "one or more" areas only compounds the above problem. I might
> support an "area" resolution if there's only one area and some suggestion
> as
> to what the overturning should result in...e.g., to increase religious
> rights, protect privacy, decrease states' rights, etc.
>
> My concern is that a "case" approach might create far less flexibility in
> what the plan can do but would allow flexibility as to how the effect of
> the
> plan can be interpreted. However, the "area" approach would allow way too
> many affs unless we narrow the areas and somehow the goal/result of the
> action.
>
> My fear is that I am going to see a resolution that is a list of 5-6
> unrelated cases list or a resolution of 3-4 areas that are unmanageable
> and
> then have to choose between the lesser evil between the two. I would like
> to
> see some other options between a list of cases or a list of areas.
>
> Kelly
>
>
>
> Kelly M. Young, Ph.D.
> Director of Forensics/
> Assistant Professor
> Communication Department
> Wayne State University
> 585 Manoogian Hall
> Detroit, MI 48201
> (313) 577-2953
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060522/18b7d0e9/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list