[eDebate] Landmark as a limiting term
Wed May 24 09:20:22 CDT 2006
also try: http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/aboutsite.html
if this approach takes, I would suggest one of the many landmark Native American decisions...Lonewolf?
However, just a list of a few cases would repeat the treaties topic...and that was awful by the end of the year...race to the bottom to see who can find the more obscure CTBT disad that ends the world...OK...that happens regardless, but Treaties got even more absurd
Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: On a different note, when we first discussed the possibility of a courts topic several years ago, it was sold as debates over "landmark" cases on big cases. We have again slowly moved away from that, in part with the Roe discussion and in part because of the way we analyze topics guided by our competitive equity measures.
Forget PICs, forget topicality, forget areas versus lists. What if we had a topic with 3-5 of the biggest, most landmark cases ever? I asked my wife to pick five landmark cases off the top of her head: she picked Roe, Grutter (Mich aff axn), Brown, then stopped. I'd add Korematsu, Bakke, and perhaps TLO vs NJ.
Any smaller cases that cut precedent, still have to deal with symbolic advantages and their value as uniqueness arguments gets limited for the same reasons: neg could make signal arguments (that the smaller case the aff is using for uniqueness didn't kick the DA in because it wasn't noticed outside of the courts, but overturning Korematsu would)--didn't know I could use these terms anymore, did you?
A quick non-lexus search for landmark cases produces a lot of sites. http://www.landmarkcases.org/ is one used to teach students about landmark cases.
The list has Korematsu, Brown, Mapp v Ohio, Roe, US v Nixon, Bakke, and NJ vs TLO, just to name a few. Anyone in debate for the last 20 years won't need much discussion of these. Pick 4-8 in different areas and role with it. If you like areas, put something together with the terms precedent and landmark to limit it to these cases.
* Why isn't landmark a potential limiting term? For those of you into it, there could be great topicality debates again...We could debate frivilous uses of the term versus more defined and field contextual uses.
If there was ever a chance to keep it simple and engage some of the most important debates of our time, this seems to be it. I caution against overthinking the competitive equity issues to the point of moving away from the true precedent setting cases. This seems like something the committee should stay conscious about.
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman