[eDebate] *Legal Topic Good*

[Josh Hoe]

Rather than continually repost all the same objections from 10 years of the
same discussion - I will only say:

I think aff flex is uber stinky......I have talked to virtually everyone
except Mike, Jackie, Matt, and the entire state of California (except for
USC) and they all agree 100% with me.  So there!

(please realize, for the record, that Josh is trying to start this all on a
much lighter note then in prior years)

Josh

On 4/7/06, dbteam <dbteam at westga.edu> wrote:

>

> i will use Matt's informative and productive post to echo some of his

> points

> which i feel have a lot of support in the community (based on

> conversations i

> have frequently among various groups), but which rarely seem to carry any

> weight when the actual resolutions get written:

>

> 1) The Resolution should not overly constrict aff plan variations by

> including

> specified agents or narrow lists of actions. this is not 1991. the growth

> of K

> ground and PICs have made debating on the NEG much easier and debating

> against

> the examples of small abusive aff cases that are always listed during the

> discussion EVEN EASIER. any casual observation of elims where sides are

> chosen

> by coin-toss reveals that waaaay too many teams flip NEG for there to be

> the

> slant toward the AFF that is the premise for the resolutions that are so

> narrowly drawn. this year's topic didn't didn't specify the agent and

> didn't

> include a list of plans, and i STILL noticed teams flipping NEG.

>

> while i, like Gerber, think a bidirectional topic would be great, i have

> no

> expectation that we'll get one of those. at this point, a topic that

> allows

> teams to develop their own plans (rather than have the resolution list

> what

> plans they can run) would be cool.

>

> 2) For the love of Ahilan Arulanantham, please let the AFF actually SOLVE

> a

> harm. it makes no sense to pick harm areas and then write the resolution

> in

> such a way that the aff can only attempt piecemeal reforms that barely

> alleviate symptoms and can never address root causes. for example, don't

> include the area of legal abuses of drug enforcement if the aff can't

> legalize

> drug consumption and distribution. a half-way approach = half-assed

> debates

> where the aff can't actually solve the problem, the neg can't CP w/

> legalization b/c it's not competitive, and it only encourages horrible K

> args

> where the "alt" is a vague legalization option. if we want to debate

> executive

> abuses of power in the war on terror, allow the aff to eliminate executive

> authority, not merely regulate it.

>

>

> hester

>

>

> >===== Original Message From "Matt Gerber" <matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com>

> =====

> >I would rather rather see some discussion about next year's

> topic/resolution

> >than about the other stuff going on. Maybe other people would too? Here

> are

> >general reasons to support a Legal topic for 06-07.

> >

> >1. If worded properly, better critical ground for the aff. What I mean

> is,

> >maybe it could be worded with a bidirectional mechanism much like the

> >1994-1995 NDT Topic: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government

> >should substantially change criminal procedure in one or more of the

> >following areas: pre-trial detention or sentencing. That way the Aff

> doesnt

> >have to defend heinous things that the USFG/Court does, rather they can

> >change/overturn or otherwise run from the legitimacy of the legal system.

> It

> >gives the Aff at least a chance for good offense against Ks of the legal

> >system/state, etc. Ban Mandatory Minimums, Strengthen The X-Rule, Change

> >Detention procedures (Immigrants, "Terrorists", Refugees), would all be

> Affs

> >in that area. The criminal procedure topic was AWESOME. Ask people who

> >debated it.

> >

> >2. I dont buy the arguments about why a bidirectional topic is bad; they

> >could be good: a) increases education-- learn both sides of the topic,

> get

> >to research an aff you actually believe in, research the mechanism

> (criminal

> >procedure in the above example) in-depth, etc. b) you have to be able to

> "go

> >both ways" on most debate positions anyway. No one just goes in with

> their

> >"Hegemony Good" files (well maybe some), but in most cases ya gotta

> research

> >the other side too. c) if worded properly, you could control the scope

> and

> >predictability of the topic by limiting the areas (sentencing or

> pre-trial

> >detention in the above example), d) it could potentially make some of

> these

> >dumb theory debates about the merits of "switch-side" debating go away;

> in

> >fact, that would kinda be built into the topic I guess.

> >

> >3. I want a legal topic, not a "Courts" topic. There is a difference. The

> >example I used above is a LEGAL topic--- its in the realm of legal

> affairs,

> >but does NOT require the Court as an actor. It does NOT require the

> overturn

> >of a Supreme Court case. You could choose the Court as your actor, but

> not

> >required. It is also not a list topic. I think a Courts topic along the

> >lines of "Resolved: That the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn one or

> more

> >of the following cases...." would be bad. Real bad. It just seems too

> small,

> >too limiting for the Aff, certainly more of an advantage for negative K

> >teams. Potentially just a snoozer. I dont know, I guess I just hate

> topics

> >that spell it all out: No flexibility on the actor or the list.  I am in

> >favor of a topic in this area, but lets open it up a bit. I'm not saying

> we

> >should just debate the 94-95 NDT topic again, but I do think the topic

> >committee got it right that year.

> >

> >Just an opening salvo.

> >

> >~Gerber

> >

> >

> >_______________________________________________

> >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/20060407/3aec60e0/attachment.html