Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
phxdragon88

Patriot Act Aff

Recommended Posts

would the rolling back hte patriot act or deeming it unconstitutional be considered topical under next year's resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a topical affirmative, there is no question about that, its in the foundation of the topic paper, its EXTREMLY predictable and its grounded in the Civil Liberty literature. The only way your beating a Patriot Act team on T is if they screw up.

 

HOWEVER its a dangerous aff much like Law of the Sea ofr a couple reasons.

 

1) The amount of literature for the negative by qualified authors, not just right wing hacks.

 

2) the PIC debate. You will need to read the entire patriot act and be ready for any team that decides to repeal all parts of the patriot act sans section X, which doesnt link to your advantage and has a net benefit.

 

If you can overcome this burden, to extensive research, and beat an Extra T argument, this is a pretty sweet aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing on T: The resolution calls for you to "Substantially decrease authority to either detain without charge or search without probable cause.

 

Or would clearly imply that you would do one, or the other, but not both.

 

As in: I will go to the park, or the zoo

 

Repealing the Patriot Act would do both, which is a potentially interesting topicality debate next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there is NO abuse to doing both, there isnt even a potential for abuse. This is a case where being Extra Topical DOES give you more ground, since its predictable ground (the other half of the resolution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except there is NO abuse to doing both, there isnt even a potential for abuse. This is a case where being Extra Topical DOES give you more ground, since its predictable ground (the other half of the resolution)

 

It does increase the amount of potential affirmatives rather significantly which always hurts neg ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, just skim through a copy of the Patriot Act, and find the section dealing only with detaining without charge (or searching without a warrant). Make plan be to just repeal that part only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does increase the amount of potential affirmatives rather significantly which always hurts neg ground.

 

Except it doesnt because those are predictable affirmatives since they are built into the resolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is essentially "Resolved: PATRIOT rollback." Extra-T is a whine. Anyone who doesn't have a grab bag of deadly exclusionary counterplans must have selectively burned 3/4 of their files.

 

The case doesn't have T problems. It has strategic problems. Going into the round granting the neg such a gigantic chunk of amazingly good counterplan and disad ground is just masochistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topic is essentially "Resolved: PATRIOT rollback." Extra-T is a whine. Anyone who doesn't have a grab bag of deadly exclusionary counterplans must have selectively burned 3/4 of their files.

 

The case doesn't have T problems. It has strategic problems. Going into the round granting the neg such a gigantic chunk of amazingly good counterplan and disad ground is just masochistic.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, anyone have the specific portions of the patriot act that would be topical,

 

actually, can someone send a link of the text of the patriot act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is, unless specified otherwise, inclusive. If the rez was: "Resolved: that the USFG should do A or B," you would be topical if you did A. You would also be topical if you did B. You would also be topical if you did A and B. You would not be topical if you did neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the thing on T: The resolution calls for you to "Substantially decrease authority to either detain without charge or search without probable cause.

 

Or would clearly imply that you would do one, or the other, but not both.

 

If you look in the dictionary, "or" can be used as either a conjuction or disjunction. It can be used exclusively (this thing but not that) as well as inclusively (this thing plus that one). "Tell Sarah or Sam" means I can tell Sarah, tell Sam, or tell them both. If you told me "tell Sarah or Sam," would you say I failed to comply with your request because I told them both? No. Only if I failed to tell either one of them could it then be said I failed to comply with your request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either is not inclusive.

 

And who cares what the words actually MEAN? It's the interp that's best for debate that matters anyway. One action instead of two = more in-depth debate = better education = more ground for Ks and whatnot.

 

It's not very difficult to come to grips with what Bruce is saying. If the topic outlines A and B as the predictable, topical case mechanisms, and it's reasonable to expect the negative to be prepared to debate both of them, there's no reason why you would be at a competitive disadvantage if the affirmative did both A and B. You don't really have a persuasive reason at all why a drastically better or different debate would have occurred in a world where you only read your A links or your B links, but not both.

 

This 'we should do what's most educational' claim is pretty asinine. Yes, debate should about competing interpretations to an extent, but it's pretty unreasonable to ask that teams lose because they linked to all the positions in your tub as oppossed to only half of them. You might have a more valid claim about how the debate is hurt, if it were not for the nature of the topic. For example, maybe you could have had a persuasive (if not unpredictable) argument on the Europe topic that aff's should be held to only one mechanism because of the very disparate case areas and extent of the debate in all seven areas. But in a world where it's only either A or B, and A or B are very similar and rooted in the same assumptions and approaches in the literature, and the topic is fairly limited as is, there is no convincing argument that I can do A or B, but not A and B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...