[eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.

Danielle Verney daisy_verney
Fri Sep 15 17:51:57 CDT 2006


There are a couple of reasons why I think caselists are very necessary on 
this topic.

1.  Negative strategies are multiple and diverse on this topic.  Many 
caselists include negative strategies.

2. Caselists are an excellent way to obtain cites of arguments, which are 
particularly good for smaller schools (like mine) who don't have the time or 
ability to conduct massive amounts of research.  We can mine the caselist 
for arguments that we want or need.

3. Even if you're correct that there are only 4 cases on the topic (and I 
don't think you are), people are reading different pieces of evidence and 
it's valuable to know who and what people are reading.

4.  I think you're just wrong about the "there are only 4 cases" claim.  As 
someone mentioned, there are at least 4 ways to run Casey and Morrison has 2 
major parts to the ruling.  Additionally, there are several different 
advantages that could be claimed on each of the four cases.  The way I 
answer a Quirin aff that claims terrorism and international law is going to 
be a lot different from the way I answer one that claims racism.

As an aside from my husband (Tom O'Gorman) -- you have at times stated that 
you think Hamdan overruled Quirin (at least in part), particularly that 
Quirin thought it did.  I am wondering why you think this in case I am 
missing something.  In his Hamdan dissent Scalia is talking about how the 
Detainee Treatment Act should prevent the Court from taking the case, to him 
Quirin should no longer be governing precedent to the issue of the court 
reviewing such an issue by habeas, as opposed to the new method created by 
the DTA.  This doesn't address the issue of legality of commissions or 
detention of enemy combatants the two advantages likely to be claimed by 
debaters.  (Scalia in Hamdi think that the full protections of the 5th and 
6th Amendments apply to American enemy combatants absent suspension of the 
writ -- but he recognizes he is in the minority there)  The Hamdan majority 
clearly allows for the exact same tribunals if Congress passes new 
legislation, and arguably allows for tribunals without further legislation 
if they don't exclude the accused from evidence or throw out the rules of 
evidence.  Finally Hamdan expressly doesn't address detentions.  I find it 
hard to see what you think has been overrulled, could you clarify.

Tom O'Gorman
Danielle Verney O'Gorman
Navy Debate




>From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:25:11 -0500
>
>I support case lists on most topics. I applaud those who work extremely 
>hard to
>put together quality lists. But on a topic that virtually mandates only 
>four
>affirmative cases, are caselist really necessary?
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate






More information about the Mailman mailing list