[CX-L] new high school topic

[Kuswa, Kevin]

Hello all.
 
So, the new high school topic is out.  Kudos to Terri Robinson and David Glass for a thorough topic paper.
 
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.
 
For those of you beginning to think about this topic, I have a few initial thoughts/comments:
 
1. Should "individuals" be included in the topic wording?  The topic is clearly talking about individuals and the topic paper defines "individual."  This wording, however, leaves the action at "detaining" and "searching."  What/who is being detained?  Are there other entities that can be detained and searched?  Groups, evidence, documents, and other objects of detention may come into play given the current wording.
 
2. This is a very important and timely topic.  I teach an undergraduate course on the Rhetoric of Terrorism at Richmond, and debates surrounding the Patriot Act, civil liberties, and the US war on terrorism have been lively and insightful.  The research is broad and contemporary and there is much space for creative arguments on the affirmative and the negative.  This is also a topic that will influence all of us over the years to come.  The hope, however, is that research will lead to specific cases of search and seizure/due process rather than turning into a war on terror good/bad topic.  
 
3. Is the federal government the only agent responsible for detention and unlawful searching?  In a constitutional frame, the federal government is crucial, but private actors, international actors, and in some cases (depending on circumvention arguments) state and local agents can also intrude on civil liberties.  The agent CP ground (court, etc.) is very fruitful, but what do you think about non-usfg counterplans?  It depends on the case, of course, but they do not appear to be a big part of negative ground.
 
4. Does the detaining (or the search) have to be taking place in the status quo?  The federal government might have the jurisdiction to detain and search in a particular instance, but that right may not have been used in years and is may not likely be used in the future.  Nevertheless, a topical affirmative could curtail that particular authority, substantially reduce the federal government's jurisdiction, but leave actual policy unchanged.  Does that leave the negative with ground outside a separation of powers position?
 
Anyway, I look forward to researching and coaching on this topic.  If you have more thoughts on these or related issues, feel free to email me.   You can also contact me in the chat room at www.g36debate.com.
 
Good luck to everyone this semester.
 
Sincerely,
 
Kevin Kuswa
Richmond debate
www.g36debate.com