homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:49 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
I am thinking of ideas for generic arguments... Specifically Disadvantages and Solvency arguments.

Do you have any ideas/list of some effective Election Law Disads? I know that a Federalism Argument can be very effective, etc.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:00 pm
Posts: 33
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region VIII
I like the Attitudinal Solvency argument- that the only real change will come when we elect politicians who care about and obey the Constitution and don't look out for their own interest 24/7. It's sort of like saying that it doesn't matter HOW people are elected, but WHO is elected.

_________________
Marshall-R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1372
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Anglophile wrote:
I like the Attitudinal Solvency argument- that the only real change will come when we elect politicians who care about and obey the Constitution and don't look out for their own interest 24/7. It's sort of like saying that it doesn't matter HOW people are elected, but WHO is elected.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding the scope of this argument, but wouldn't AFF just come up and claim fiat power? "Sure, the NEG's argument is valid that who we have in Congress now might not want to pass reform. But we as the AFF have fiat power to pass our reform, so that argument is not an issue."

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Masked Midnight wrote:
Constitutionality will be huge this year. Prep out and understand where America's founders stood on election issues (Electoral College, ect.) and be ready to show why something would be unconstitutional.

and why it matters that something is unconstitutional.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:00 pm
Posts: 33
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region VIII
Evan wrote:
Anglophile wrote:
I like the Attitudinal Solvency argument- that the only real change will come when we elect politicians who care about and obey the Constitution and don't look out for their own interest 24/7. It's sort of like saying that it doesn't matter HOW people are elected, but WHO is elected.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding the scope of this argument, but wouldn't AFF just come up and claim fiat power? "Sure, the NEG's argument is valid that who we have in Congress now might not want to pass reform. But we as the AFF have fiat power to pass our reform, so that argument is not an issue."


What I mean is that the AFF's plan won't have any real effect because they're not addressing the root of the problem- that we need better people in Congress, not better ways to get them there. :)

_________________
Marshall-R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
This seems like a pretty promising generic negative argument, especially because of how easy it would be to explain, and how much intuitive appeal it has. The wish for power is hydraulic, and attempts to constrain it just drive people to dream up new loopholes and new ways to cheat. And if you do searches for the word "hydraulic" in connection with election reform and other topic keywords, there are some very good articles, and a few quick references in articles on other subjects.

For those brave enough to try kritik debating, there's substantial overlap between this and a kritik that draws heavily from Michel Foucault; Foucault said attempts to constrain power just result in its reconfiguration, often with greater potency, which is an absolute takeout and a sizable risk of a net turn to solvency. A good place to start reading would be "Discipline and Punish," or possibly "Governmentality."


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:00 am 
Offline
Hermione's smart friend
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:43 pm
Posts: 1852
Home Schooled: Yes
Anglophile wrote:
I like the Attitudinal Solvency argument- that the only real change will come when we elect politicians who care about and obey the Constitution and don't look out for their own interest 24/7. It's sort of like saying that it doesn't matter HOW people are elected, but WHO is elected.

Except that how people are elected is extremely influential in determining who is elected.

_________________
"What happened to your apartment?"
"I filled it with playpen balls!"
"I...what? Why?"
"Because we're grown-ups now, and it's our turn to decide what that means."
<3


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:00 pm
Posts: 33
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region VIII
But if the only ones who run are the ones who don't care anything about what's right, then nothing will change, no matter what we change in the election system.

_________________
Marshall-R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:50 pm
Posts: 391
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Falling at a 60° angle, defying physics
There are multiple Constitutionality arguments besides intent of the Founding Fathers, such as a 10th Amendment press (state's rights). You can run it against any case that uses federal enforcement, and Razi posted a more than decent response to the Elections Clause arguments in the voter ID thread, which directly ties back to Founders' Intent. I intend to run a 10th Amendment press whenever a team uses federal enforcement, and we use the fifty states as enforcement in our cases.

_________________
Andrew

Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2012-13
Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2013-14
Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2014-15
Barndt/Blacklock | Arete, R10 | 2015-16
Barndt/Cuddeback | R10 | 2016-17
Barndt/Wolf | SALT, R10 | 2017-18

JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
I'm inclined to think like Andrew does.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm
Posts: 340
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Manhattan KS (Region V)
Two disad cards I can think of would be:

1: "Making it harder for people to vote (to solve voter fraud) will disenfranchise millions of legitimate voting citizens."

2: "Making it easier to vote (to let all legitimate citizens vote) will cause huge amounts of voter fraud."

_________________
Alius Iudex Alius Dies, Sola Deo Gloria


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
I think I've posted this before, but the impact card we've always used for constitutionality arguments borrows the language of an 1886 Supreme Court decision, Norton v. Shelby County. Here's a fairly recent iteration of it:

Margarita R. Karpov, JD. Akron Tax Journal, 2008, pp. 170-171.
An unconstitutional statute must be treated as if it had never been enacted. In the words of the United States Supreme Court, "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

And I'll note with amusement something else I discovered in my quick search for the card. Occasionally an affirmative team would say "That just means our plan passes and we get the advantages while it makes its way through the courts, but the courts strike it down before your disadvantage kicks in, so we win." Here's an entertainingly worded answer to that:

Ronald A. Parsons, JD. South Dakota Law Review, 1998, p. 174.
I must respectfully disagree. An unconstitutional law, when promulgated, does confer rights, impose duties, and afford such protection as is consistent with its scope. It does govern, and is, in the truest sense, law - and remains viable law - until precisely the moment that it is articulated as violating a superseding constitutional precept by an institution vested with such authority. The life of a law, thus, begins at conception and abides until its constitutional lifeblood has been drained. Neither the South Dakota Codified Laws nor the United States Code are equipped with rewind buttons. An unconstitutional law can never be made "as though it has never been passed" when its bootprints are left on the throats of those it has oppressed. An abuse of power may be abated, but it cannot be erased.

Anyone who can't find the fun in intoning "the bootprints on the throats of those it has oppressed" while struggling not to laugh is in the wrong sport.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Thanks for the Discussion guys! Another question: What about Topicality arguments? I think they could be very helpful at this point in the season.

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 100
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region V (Manhattan KS)
Simon Sefzik wrote:
Thanks for the Discussion guys! Another question: What about Topicality arguments? I think they could be very helpful at this point in the season.
Obviously: State Election Law V. Federal Election Law reform

One card that I have is something to the effect of, if you reform any federal elections which would also have some effect on state elections (like, saying felons can vote in federal elections, but you can't say they can vote for state ones because that would be nontopical) then either 1) it complicates elections because then you have to print two separate ballots, (one for federal elections, one for state) 2) people just apply the same restrictions for federal elections to state elections because it is easier.
So then in that case, the Aff is either reforming Federal and State election Law (making them be non/extra topical) or making elections more complicated by changing only federal election law instead of state election law also.

_________________
Non nobis Domine, Sed nomini Tu o da gloriam


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:28 pm
Posts: 50
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: PA
On T:
Many gerrymandering reforms are related not directly to election law, but to redistricting law. The affirmative team's plan must not just affect elections, it must be within the body of election law. If we were talking about plans that affected elections, the affirmative could run just about anything: topical plans would range from mandating that democrat party leaders must buy meals for the slums of America to newspapers cannot print primary election results. But that isn’t the case, we must look at the resolution as it is, and we are asked to reform election law. Gerrymandering plans deals with districting, which, while related to elections, and certainly effecting elections, definitely does not fall within the body of law that determines who, what, where, when, why, or how elections are held, all gerrymandering plans change is what part of the country an official is supposed to represent.

_________________
My Autofill when I start typing http://www.homes is in a constant state of flux between Homestar Runner and Homeschool debate...


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:09 am
Posts: 143
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Annihilating your frisbee.
A generic on why turnout is the way it is is extremely helpful. Load it full of warrants, explanations, and numbers.

A generic on political legitimacy and why it is important is also worth looking into. Lots of ways to link in decreasing political legitimacy in so many different cases.

And of course, the existence or the lack thereof of voter fraud.

_________________
James Russell - DFW Speech and Debate

Head Instructor
Private Coach
Executive Editor of the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Tools for Team Policy Debate Sourcebook


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 100
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region V (Manhattan KS)
You could also have a Turnout Kritik saying that Voter Turnout is not a legitimate way of measuring whether something is good or not.

_________________
Non nobis Domine, Sed nomini Tu o da gloriam


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited