[eDebate] About the relative size of the topics...

[William J Repko]

Enclosed is a condensed version Tripp's post. I selected it b/c I think it 
summarizes one of the most prominent indicts of the list options. 

I react afterwards. 

...I'm trying to figure out which topic to vote for, but -- for now -- I do 
not think I agree w/ Tripp's criticism. 


 ------------ Tripp ------------------
To those who think they are voting for a "list" topic by voting for the
non-first amendment resolution, I would caution you to think more
carefully....it is not true that there are only 4 possible
affirmatives. 

(1) Not only are their multiple ways to overrule a decision....but also 
there is no specification of whether the decision has to be overruled in 
whole, in part, in holding, in judgement, or anything of that nature. 

(2) The "list" topics only focus on the action of overrule, not what
REPLACES the old decision.... Arguably the NEW tests put in place by the 
court are the most important. While "overrule" creates a limit on the 
/mechanism /for the INITIAL action, make no mistake that tricky affirmatives 
will be able to come up with many different and new /outcomes/, that might 
even be nearly irrelevant to the original case. The perceived "limit" of the 
"lists", in my mind, don't seem that limiting.
 --------Tripp ends------------------ 

let me start by saying that I'm not yet sold that "overrule" will -- in 
actual debates -- be *so simple* for the Aff to comfortably manipulate. I am 
still making my mind up about that. 

Yes, I would have preferred that the committee had no verb in the stem, and 
used prescribed verb for each list-item. 

But, I still need convincing that "overrule" is an utter lock to de-limit.   
(I'd appreciate people posting their side of the T debate) 

If a list topic were to win -- it just seems as though judges would err 
towards limiting T interpretations of the word "overrule". It would reflect 
the rationale of voting for a list option. 

That being said, hypothetically suppose "overrule" is as unquestionably 
de-limiting as (some) critics have claimed... 

Then, why aren;t many of these indicts just as true of the 1st amendment 
topic ?... 

...after all, it uses the same word. 

Area #1 – 

The USSC should curtail the protection provided for free speech by the First 
Amendment of the United States’ Constitution by overruling one or more of 
its decisions on obscenity, hate speech, and/or campaign finance. 


...won't these same tricky Affirmatives: 

 a) curtail free speech and replace with all sorts of de-limiting alts ?...
 b) manipulate the mutiple ways to overrule a decision ?... overrule part of 
a decision, etc...
 c) use any "ground" they wish for creative advantage areas. 

The obvious answer is "yes, but... at least the neg will always have a free 
speech good disad"... 

I suppose, but: 

 1. This places an awful lot of faith in how great *that* disad is. 

Affs will use their wiggle room to develop an angle on free speech good. 
They'll obviously select Affs with on-point answers to that disad. 

...plus, "free speech good" is far from the scariest disad we've seen built 
into a broad topic. 

 2. This places no faith that judges will hold the line on T on the list 
topics. 

Near as I can tell, the reasoning is: 

  Both topics are very de-limiting, but at least the areas option gives the 
neg a generic to fall back on. 

Voters had best be REALLY convinced that overrule has no limiting function. 
The areas option cannot make a respectable claim that it is the most 
limiting topic -- it almost definitely foresakes predictability. The list 
option only might. 

 3. A lot of education stems not from the debating-phase, but the 
preparation-phase. 

Even if "overrule" winds-up rendering the list-topics de-limiting, I still 
think Negs will *feel* they have to be prepared for "normal" Affs. 

...can you fathom teams saying: 

 "we don't even need to prepare for the contingency that an Aff will 
overturn the heart of Casey or Morrison. No one will do THAT!!" 

I like that the list topics encourage negs to research the specific cases. 

I fear that the areas option will incentivize a more generic approach to the 
topic. Generics could easily seem like the path of less resistance. To me, 
this defeats the purpose of forced rotation. 

Would appreciate greater discussion from parties re: T defs of "overrule". 

   Best, 

     Leonard Kravitz