Death penalty should not be excluded altogether (which seems from the choppy audio to be some folks' argument).

Domestic death penalty debates can be quite vibrant -- a bunch of teams ran it on the criminal procedure topic. Negatives had decent ground (backlash, vigilantism, retribution, overcrowding, agent arguments, moratoria v. ban, extradition fights, grounds for overturning it, etc.), in spite of the beginning of the innocence project movement.

The backfile argument is non-unique. No matter what gets chosen high school and college backfiles will be recycled.

The "Dartmouth can run their same aff" or "Emory won't research this" arguments do not seem to be reasons to deny the rest of the debate community the opportunity to learn about them.
 

I missed any committee discussion of Kelo, but...

How do proponents of including the case reconcile the fact that a number of states have either already or will soon implement legislation severely limiting eminent domain? How does this affect the way debates on the case will play out?
 

Here’s evidence to support the claim. You can also add Minnesota to the states listed in the article.

Los Angeles Times, April 16, 2006, p. A1, LN.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments could seize private property and hand it over to developers has set off a landslide of legislation in statehouses around the country.
Since the court expanded the definition of eminent domain in June in Kelo vs. City of New London, lawmakers in 47 states have introduced more than 325 measures to protect private property
[….]
The final paragraph of the majority opinion in Kelo essentially invited legislatures to make their own rules on eminent domain if they didn't like the decision. Almost every state commenced to do just that.
Delaware moved first, permitting eminent domain to be used only for a recognized public purpose. Alabama, Ohio and Texas passed bills barring the use of eminent domain to increase tax revenue or promote private development. In November, Michigan voters will cast ballots on an amendment that would prohibit the taking of property for economic development.
In recent weeks, Utah, Kansas and New Hampshire limited eminent domain, as did Indiana, Idaho, West Virginia, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Maryland has more than 40 Kelo-inspired eminent domain bills pending. California has at least a dozen.
Most of these proposals -- including several in California -- preclude the use of eminent domain for economic development or increased tax revenue.
One of the half-dozen measures under discussion in Alaska bars the use of eminent domain to take property that will be transferred to a "private person," such as a developer. A bill in Georgia would allow private property to be seized for economic development, but only in blighted areas.
In New Jersey, half a dozen bills sit "bottled up in committee," Allen said, and months could pass before lawmakers take up the eminent domain bills.