homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:59 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  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Thanks to Peter for agreeing to debate me, it should be fun. :)

I will post my 1AC tomorrow (1/10/12) afternoon.

I would appreciate a few judges. If you want to judge, just post below and I'll add your name to this post.

Judges:

- Danny
- ParadigmPWNS
- David Roth

_________________
- 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


Last edited by kingwill on Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:56 am
Posts: 105
Home Schooled: No
Even though I'm doing Stoa LD (complete opposite of NCFCA TP :P) I'd be willing to judge.

_________________
lucky13 wrote:
and for those who don't know, Danny rocks, plus he's hilarious :D


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:20 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1370
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
I'll watch, this sounds like a great debate that will be entertaining and informative. I would like to judge but fear that I might not be able to keep up with my judging responsibilities, especially with a tournament coming up in two or three days. That, and the fact that Stoa LD is vastly different than NCFCA TP. I really like TP and am familiar with the argumentation, terminology, debate theory, etc. because I've done two years of it so far. But I guess I'd act as a community judge, no? :P

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Thanks guys! I could care less that you're in LD, and my case is pretty straightforward theory-wise, so you should be able to follow along fine. :)

_________________
- 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: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:56 am
Posts: 105
Home Schooled: No
Yes! And like Paradigm, I have experience in Team Policy debate (if only for 1 year), so you don't need to worry that I won't understand a T-press. :lol:

Oh yes, judging philosophy:

1. Please, please, please, please, please do NOT run Topicality. I hate the argument, it's overused and abused. Unless there is true abuse coming from the affirmative case, T will not win you any brownie points with me.
2. If Aff wins all 4 stock issues, I move to Comparative Advantages. If Aff wins comparative advantages, Aff wins the round.
3. I've never judged a VDebate before, so I'm unfamiliar with character limits/etc.
4. I'm not in love with advanced theory. I'm ok with it if you run it well, but a bad Kritik won't get you anywhere.
5. Don't be afraid to drop arguments that are going nowhere. I don't count drops as "insta-loss", especially if it was, say responded to in the 2AC but dropped in the 1AR.

Other than that, have fun. And you lost the game. :lol:

_________________
lucky13 wrote:
and for those who don't know, Danny rocks, plus he's hilarious :D


Last edited by Danny on Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1370
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Yeah! I'll judge then. :) you don't have to worry about me not knowing what "solvency" or "parametrics" is... ;)

Philosophy:
1.) I flow dropped argumentation, but you have to weigh the arguments for me. If you don't do the weighing, then I'll do the weighing and vote based off of the argument's importance. Dropped arguments don't = auto-loss for me.
2.) I'm perfectly fine with complicated debate theory. Just simplify it as best as you can, but if you can't I'm okay with it.
3.) I don't auto-lose the NEG for topicality unless it is absolutely ridiculous. I'll listen to a topicality argument and if it doesn't stand up I'll move on to other arguments, because in my mind if AFF loses topicality = NEG win, but if NEG loses topicality = no impact.
4.) search for the hidden nuggets. Many times of you completely read a piece of evidence or look at the context of a situation it sheds more light on it. I LOVE it when debaters find the holes in a case or argument that aren't obvious. Of course, exploit obvious holes, but try to go a little deeper.

That's pretty much it. Have a great round. ;)

@Danny: Arrrrgh. Not The Game! :lol:

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

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


Last edited by Evan on Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:24 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
I'll Judge :)

Paradigm: I'll evaluate the affirmative on the Stock Issues first, when I'm convinced by the affirmative's defenses of the Stock Issues, I will evaluate the plan on Net Benefits. If the affirmative team fails a Stock Issue, or the Negative casts a significant amount of doubt on one, I will vote Neg.

In general I don't like Kritiks.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Thanks, David!

Alright, so I'm going to get this underway. For clarification, we will be using standard rules.

1AC
As far back as 1827, an English jurist named Jeremy Bentham realized that: "Evidence is the basis of justice: exclude evidence, you exclude justice."

Because my partner and I agree with Jeremy Bentham, we are compelled to stand for evidence and stand Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its criminal justice system.

In order to provide clarity in today's debate round, it is imperative that we define the Exclusionary Rule.

According to Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution."

More definitions can be provided upon request.

To further elaborate on the exclusionary rule, I would like to introduce a purely hypothetical - but completely possible - example of the exclusionary rule in action: "suppose Stan stabs his neighbor Victor to death. Arriving on the scene, a policeman breaks into Stan's home without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He finds the bloody weapon. At Stan's murder trial, the judge will not permit the prosecutor to introduce the knife as evidence, on the grounds that the knife is "fruit of the poisoned tree," the result of an unconstitutional search and seizure. Although he is in fact a murderer, Stan might well go free because the jury is not permitted to see the best evidence." (Patrick Tinsley and Stephan Kinsella, 2003)

Next, I would like to establish some Background: the Exclusionary Rule's purpose is to deter police misconduct.

As held in United States v. Calandra, "the [Exclusionary] rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures: The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter -- to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it." (United States v. Calandra, 1973) [brackets added]

Unfortunately, though, the Exclusionary Rule does not succeed in its goal of deterring police misconduct. In fact, it also hurts our justice system and society as a whole, as we see in the

Harms

Harm 1: The Exclusionary Rule does not deter future police misconduct.
From Harry M. Caldwell and Carol A. Chase, "A police officer who has violated a defendant's rights is not held personally accountable for that violation. In fact, empirical studies support the view that the Rule has a minimal effect on the police officers' on-the-street behavior. This is the ironic effect of the American Exclusionary Rule: In essence, the present rule lacks the power to deter, even though deterrence is the primary objective cited by the Supreme Court for implementing and then retaining the Exclusionary Rule." (Carol A. Chase and Harry M. Caldwell, 1994)

Harm 2: The Exclusionary Rule adversely affects a large amount of cases.
According to Edwin Meese III, the seventy-fifth U.S. Attorney General, "the exclusionary rule has had a devastating impact on law enforcement in America. One recent study estimated that 150,000 criminal cases, including 30,000 cases of violence, are dropped or dismissed every year because the exclusionary rule excluded valid, probative evidence needed for prosecution." (Edwin Meese III, 1997)

This harm creates 3 negative impacts: the exclusionary rule helps the guilty, hurts the innocent, and harms society.

Impact A: The Exclusionary Rule helps the guilty.
Aaron Falk reported for the Salt Lake Tribune in 2010 that "Before the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday, University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell said the state's independent exclusionary rule 'only gives right to guilty criminals' and 'suppresses reliable evidence … thus helping them escape punishment and re-victimize victims.'" (The Salt Lake Tribune, 2010)

Impact B: The Exclusionary Rule hurts the innocent.
From the American Law and Economics Association, Dhammika Dharmapala, Nuno Garoupa, and Richard H. McAdams state that "We consider two models under which exclusionary rules also increase the probability of convicting the innocent. […] because the evidence is excluded, it slightly increases the probability of convicting all defendants, not just those to whom the evidence pertains. As a result, evidentiary exclusion dilutes the quality of the rational jury's decision-making not only by decreasing the probability of convicting the guilty, but also by increasing the probability of convicting the innocent." (Dhammika Dharmapala, Nuno Garoupa, and Richard H. McAdams, 2008) [ellipses added]

Really, this impact is just common sense. Imagine a trial without any evidence: the probability of a correct verdict would be exactly 50% because the jury might as well flip a coin. The more evidence you add, the more likely it is that the jury will make the correct decision. By taking away evidence, the exclusionary rule makes it more likely that innocent people will be convicted. If you are innocent, why would you want to exclude any evidence from the trial? All that the evidence could do is prove your innocence.

Impact C: The Exclusionary Rule harms society.
Ronald J. Rychlak, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and MDLA Professor of Law, University of Mississippi School of Law, said in January 2010 that "The exclusionary rule comes at a high cost […] as one commentator explained: "The exclusionary rule - which bars the use of evidence said to have been illegally obtained - was established in 1914 in Weeks v. United States but did little harm until it was applied to the states. … Ninety-five per cent of the crime committed in the United States, and virtually all violent crime, comes under the jurisdiction of the states. Once the Weeks rule was brought to bear against the states the result was uncounted thousands of robbers, rapists, and murderers set free." […] For a small violation of Fourth Amendment rights, a dangerous and guilty criminal can obtain a tremendous benefit. As Harvard Professor Akhil Amar put it, that makes us all a little less secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects." (Ronald J. Rychlak, 2010) [ellipses added]

To solve the harms that the Exclusionary Rule creates, we offer the following

Plan

Our Agency and Enforcement come from the courts, Congress, and the President.

Mandates

1. The United States will appeal the decision of any case that is adversely affected by the Exclusionary Rule.
2. The Supreme Court will then hear the case and rule that no evidence be excluded from a trial solely because of a 4th Amendment violation.
3. Congress will echo the Supreme Court decision by creating an "inclusionary rule" that mandates that no evidence be excluded solely because of a 4th Amendment violation.
4. Congress will modify Section 401 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to allow the court to punish officers guilty of 4th Amendment violations through a contempt of court charge.

This plan will take effect immediately upon an Affirmative ballot.

No funding will be needed, and

We, the affirmative team, reserve the right to clarify this plan in future speeches.

By passing this plan, we would gain the following Advantages.

Advantage 1: Treating 4th Amendment violations with Contempt of Court is a better deterrent.

In Harm 1, I showed that the Exclusionary Rule does not deter police misconduct. But does our solution work any better? Ronald J. Rychlak states that "The exclusionary rule has never been a perfect remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation. Its main advantage is that it has been a better deterrent than the alternatives. Treating Fourth Amendment violations as criminal contempt of court, however, is an even better deterrent, and, when coupled with an admissibility standard typical of those found around the world, it better protects society and provides a better remedy for Fourth Amendment violations." (Ronald J. Rychlak, 2010)

Advantage 2: The Exclusionary Rule will no longer affect the estimated 150,000 cases per year.

By removing the interference that the Exclusionary Rule causes, we solve for the three impacts stated under Harm 2. No longer will the guilty be aided and released based on a technicality. No longer will the innocent be hurt by a lack of evidence. And no longer will society be threatened by potentially violent criminals who have been released because of the Exclusionary Rule.

To recap, the Exclusionary Rule was designed to protect the 4th Amendment rights of American Citizens. It attempts to accomplish this goal by preventing prosecutors form using evidence obtained through illegal searches or seizures. However, as I have shown in the Harms, the exclusionary rule does not accomplish this goal. Furthermore, it hurts America by allowing guilty criminals to be set free. Our alternative is to allow this illegally obtained evidence to be used in trials while simultaneously directly punishing the officer who performed the illegal search or seizure. This creates several Advantages, namely that illegal searches are deterred more effectively and guilty individuals are convicted.

Judge, our criminal justice system isn't perfect, and we can't make it perfect, but we can bring it one step closer. That is what our plan is doing, and is why my partner and I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today's debate round.

Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination.

_________________
- 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: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Response to CX of 1AC
Peter Voell wrote:
1. Would you agree with the consequentialist idea of ‘the end justifies the means?’

2. Just so we’re clear, your plan would allow evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment to be admitted in trial, right?

3. Is it possible to define a search as ‘unlawful’ until the search in question has taken place?

4. You raise interesting scenarios under your harms…a few questions here:
A. How many deaths can be attributed to “criminals let free” because of the exclusionary rule, if any?

B. How many “innocents” have been falsely convicted because of the exclusionary rule?

C. Is it your contention that we should attempt to convict as many lawbreakers as possible, regardless of other factors?

5. Is illegal search and seizure bad, in any sense of the word?

6. May I please see the standards the United States will be using for a determination of what “adverse affect” constitutes?

7. Also, what is the name of the case that the Supreme Court will rule on regarding the exclusionary rule?

8. For the sake of clarification, are courts required to place offending law enforcement personnel in contempt of the court, or is it left to their individual discretion?

1. No, the end does not always justify the means.

2. Yes, that's correct.

3. If I understand your question correctly, yes. It is possible to classify certain types of searches as unlawful before the search takes place.

4. A. While we cannot directly link any deaths to the exclusionary rule, it would be naive to assume that none of the 30,000 violent criminals released annually (because of the Exclusionary Rule) would harm somebody.

B. The authors of the article don't give any estimates.

C. Not at all.

5. Illegal search and seizure is bad in every sense of the word. However, an important distinction to make is that the results of an illegal search and seizure are never inherently "bad."

6. Essentially, an "adverse effect" would be any instance in which the exclusionary rule was invoked, resulting in the exclusion of evidence.

7. The case has obviously not taken place yet, so I cannot predict what its name will be. However, I think that the name of the case is hardly relevant to today's round.

8. It would be left to their individual discretion, in much the same way that the exclusion of evidence is left to their individual discretion.

_________________
- 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: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Response to follow up questions
Peter Voell wrote:
3. Would you please provide an example of where a search could be determined as unlawful prior to the search occurring?

5. So the action is bad, but the results aren’t. correct?

8. How frequently do courts ignore the exclusionary rule?

9. What is the role of the Supreme Court?

3. Well, for example, searches made without warrants are deemed unlawful, and we do not need to wait until such a search is performed to label it unlawful.

5. Yes.

8. Courts ignore the exclusionary rule when the officer performed the search in "good faith" (for example, using a warrant later shown to be legally defective), however, I don't know how frequently this occurs.

9. Their primary role is that of an appellate court, that is, a court which resolves appeals from cases that originate in lower courts. They also focus their interpretation on cases that have potential to shed new light on a Constitutional issue.

_________________
- 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: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
CX of 1NC
1. What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule?

2. Should officers be punished for violating others' 4th Amendment rights?

3. What are the three branches of the federal government?

4. Is fiating the future distinct from fiating solvency?

5. Suppose that some debate team created a plan that passed a piece of legislation. Under your interpretation, their fiat of Congress would fiat their solvency (i.e. that their plan will "work"), correct?

6. You stated that increased deterrence is solvency, not an advantage, right?

7. Let's imagine a criminal robbed a bank and is punished. Have we "allowed" him to rob a bank nonetheless?

8. In the Spanish Inquisition, the government authorized torture, correct?

_________________
- 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: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Follow up
2. That's interesting. So what you're saying is that, as long as they're acting in the interest of their personal safety, we should not punish officers for violating inalienable rights?

5. OK, so what is the difference between fiating existence and fiating your plan to work?

6. So, essentially, you think that increased deterrence of illegal searches is NOT advantageous?

7. I do get your point, and it's fascinating. Is this correct: "Unless we have a "search and seizure monitor," we cannot help but allow illegal searches?"

8. When you say "individual rights," do you mean the right to be free from illegal searches, or the right have "illegal" evidence excluded in a trial? In other words, do we authorize the illegal searches and seizures, or the use of evidence obtained through the seizures? Or both?

_________________
- 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: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
one more question, 2AC should be up sometime tonight
8. Almost everybody, including the government, legitimizes the use of organs of victims of car crashes. By legitimizing the use of the organs, do we then legitimize the car crash BECAUSE it makes the organs available?

_________________
- 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 Jan 14, 2012 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
2AC
Going down the flow:

Background

The negative speaker interpreted the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of individuals' 4th amendment rights, giving two reasons to prefer. These were 1. that unlawful searches can only be defined ex post facto, and 2. that law enforcement personnel don't care about the Constitution.

The first reason to prefer contains an absurd logical leap which becomes clearer if we liken illegal searches and seizures to another illegal activity, such as manslaughter. In the abstract, we can obviously determine guidelines for what constitutes a manslaughter: this is what the laws against manslaughter do. However, we cannot take an instance of manslaughter and classify it as such until the completion of a trial, which makes it technically ex post facto. However, though manslaughter is ex post facto, the general guidelines and laws against serve a powerful deterrent purpose. In the same way, deterrence of illegal searches and seizures is far from a moot point.

For the second reason to prefer, the negative read a great quote about the exclusionary rule's failure to deter. This quote essentially said that the exclusionary rule does nothing to discourage illegal searches, because any rational officer cares more about himself than he does the Constitution. Again, though, the opposing speaker jumps straight from this to the conclusion that the primary goal of the exclusionary rule is not to deter.

If my goal in a basketball game is to score as many points as I can and I end up scoring none, has my goal changed? Not one iota. The failure of the exclusionary rule to deter police misconduct in no way negates the exclusionary rule's goal of deterring police misconduct.

So, there's no reason to prefer the negative's interpretation, but why should you prefer the affirmative's interpretation? Simply put, because the Supreme Court said so. I already read a Supreme Court quote in the 1AC that said as much, but for good measure, here is another one from United States v. Janis, 1976,

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard against future violations of Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect. However, the issue of exclusion is separate from whether the Amendment has been violated. The Amendment does not expressly preclude the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and exclusion is appropriate only where the rule's remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.

Since the Supreme Court implemented the exclusionary rule, they know it's intended purpose best – not the Alabama Law Review or the negative team.

Let's continue with the Harms.

The negative's response to Harm 1 was basically that it rests on the assumption that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent purpose. I have two responses:

A. It doesn't. Regardless of whether or not the exclusionary rule was designed to deter, it harms the status quo by failing to deter. Back to basketball, pretend my goal was to not score as many points as I could. I still score zero. Have I still harmed my team? Yes. Regardless of the goal, failure to deter is harmful.

B. The assumption is entirely correct. As I said in the background point, the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter. So, by the negative's own rhetoric, the exclusionary rule harms society because it fails to fulfill its intended purpose.

Quote, “Harm 2 isn't a harm; it's a statistic.” Unquote.

That was the negative team's rebuttal of the piece of evidence read in the 1AC which pointed out that 150,000 criminals are let loose every year because of the exclusionary rule. And I wholeheartedly agree with them. It's a statistic, and it's a frightening one. 5000 people die every day due to AIDS. Is that a statistic? Sure is. Is it a harm in the status quo? You bet. Likewise, the statistical nature of our evidence in no way detracts from its weight.

Impacts.

We had three impacts, 2 of which were responded to with the “no data” argument, and the third with the “not all criminals are dangerous” argument. I will respond to these in turn.

First, the “no data” argument. My response to this is that we did provide data. It seems quite ironic for the negative team to complain about the statistical nature of our harm, and then cry for hard data when responding to the harm's impacts. Clearly, we provided the data: 150,000 released criminals and 30,000 violent criminals.

Second, let's look at the “not all criminals are dangerous” argument. [pause] That makes sense. If you thought I was arguing that every single criminal released under the exclusionary rule is violent, I apologize for the confusion. Rather, I will reference the unrefuted statistics card: of the 150,000 criminals released, Meese says that 30,000 are violent. All criminals? No. But enough to pose a threat and warrant a change? Yes.

Now let's look at the plan-side arguments, one by one.

First, that the affirmative can't fiat the Supreme Court. Essentially, his argument here was that fiat is legislative and the Supreme Court is judicial, ergo the Supreme Court cannot be fiated. I would like to challenge the first premise by explaining the concept of fiat.

You see, debaters worldwide can thank the genius who developed the idea of taking debate from a “would” to “should” realm. We can also thank whoever decided to word this change into the resolution. The affirmative team team stands Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its criminal justice system. In fact, since the resolution says “should” instead of “would,” the affirmative doesn't need this magic pill called “fiat.” If we can prove that the federal government should significantly reform its criminal justice system, we have fulfilled our burden of proof.

So why can the affirmative fiat the Supreme Court? Again, check out the resolution. It says “United States Federal Government,” not “United States Legislative and Executive branches.” The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, and it should reform the criminal justice system. Simple as that. Vote affirmative, and vote against branch discrimination.

He also mentioned that the Supreme Court is a checking agent. In most cases, this is true, but the exclusionary rule is an example of “prophylactic rule,” or judicially-crafted rule. Since the Supreme Court created it, only they can take it away. Thus, in our plan, the Supreme Court is an acting, not a checking agent.

His second objection to the plan was that there is no test case. He's right, there isn't. But there will be. If the U.S. appeals the next case to come its way and the Supreme Court rules according to the mandates, the exclusionary rule will be removed. He did have two objections to this, however.

First, that fiat only exists in the present. Here we are again, on the lovely island of fiat, and again we see that there is no backing for this claim. If the U.S. government was restricted to actions that could take place in the present, that would limit the affirmative's options quite a bit. Take legislation: the president takes at least a few seconds to sign any bill into law after Congress passes it. When we restrict the affirmative to the present, debate becomes unrealistic and impossible.

Of course, if fiating the future was the same as fiating solvency, that would be a big problem too. Fortunately, it isn't. If I fiat the U.S. to nuke Iran 5 years from now, with the goal of world peace, have I fiated world peace? Probably not. Likewise, the notion that my plan is suddenly perfect because I fiated the future is nonsense. I bet if you asked my opponent if my plan was perfect, he'd disagree.

Secondly, he objected on the grounds that he can't debate the plan without knowing the name of the case. He seems to be doing quite fine at the moment, but there is another problem with this line of argumentation as well, which is that it doesn't have an impact. I already acknowledged that we don't know the name of this future case, but what does it matter? Until he answers that question, the name of the future case is irrelevant.

His third argument was that I mandate my own solvency by fiating the Supreme Court. However, I don't. I mandate that the Supreme Court will remove the exclusionary rule. Will that solve anything? So far, the evidence says that it will, but it is that which is up for debate.

When it comes to the fourth argument, I apologize for the confusion. I am not telling the Supreme Court what to do. I am telling you, the judges, what the Supreme Court should do. This all goes back to the fiat issue. Overriding the “just procedure” of the courts is the same as overriding the “just procedure” of the Senate, which is to say that neither should happen. What should happen, though, is that the just procedures should work to make XYZ happen. That is the essence of a plan.

Phew.

Advantages

The first advantage is that the contempt of court solution deters illegal searches more effectively.

Aaand his response: the card is warrantless, contains no rationale, and is, quote, “essentially a bunch of fluffy rhetoric.” Judges, if that isn't “fluffy rhetoric,” I don't know what is.

However, if my opponent was really opposed to that card, I hope he will like this card – also from MDLA Professor of Law Ronald Rychlak – more.

this paper proposes that Fourth Amendment violations be treated like direct criminal contempt of court. Thus, if a judge determines that there has been a serious Fourth Amendment violation, the offending officer could be criminally punished. Inasmuch as [contempt of court] this punishment can be comparatively severe and is directly aimed at the officer, it should have a strong deterrent effect. Moreover, since a judge would be empowered to enforce the conviction with minimal process beyond that which would have already taken place, it would be a more reliable deterrent than the existing exclusionary rule.

Rychlak's rationale here is far from lacking. Put yourself in the policeman's shoes: if you are likely to receive punishment for an illegal search, are you likely to make one? No. This is the core concept of punishment: to punish the offender for his wrongdoing. The status quo does not punish officers for wrongdoing, and thus provides no deterrent effect. The affirmative plan fixes that.

Advantage 2, as the negative kindly pointed out, is based off the second harm, which is a big problem, as I showed earlier.

Finally, the disadvantage, which essentially says that the affirmative allows – even authorizes – illegal searches and seizures.

Point A: consequentialism.

Illegal searches and seizures are bad, but we shouldn't refrain from using the evidence that results from them. Does this mean that the evidence justifies the illegal search? No. If this was the affirmative mindset, we would pass a plan that allowed police officers to freely ransack homes in search of evidence. But we didn't do that, because we don't want illegal searches. However, if the searches happen, why would we reject the evidence? The wrong has been committed. The illegal search has been done. And, in the words of the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon,

An examination of the Fourth Amendment's origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure works no new Fourth Amendment wrong.

Point B: the Constitution.

This essentially, rests on the assumption that to use “illegal” evidence in trials is equivalent to “bartering off” 4th amendment rights. However, if anything is “bartering off” 4th amendment rights, it is the status quo that allows police to ransack homes without being punished.

In the end, this disadvantage is more appropriately applied to the status quo, not the affirmative plan. The status quo is allowing police officers to perform illegal searches with no penalty, while the plan results in a net loss of illegal searches, and consequently a net gain in 4th amendment rights security.

Wrapping up, our harms are significant. Our plan is legitimate. And in response to the negative's fluffy rhetoric, we have evidence saying that contempt of court deters illegal searches better, effectively turning their disadvantage.

_________________
- 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 Jan 14, 2012 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Response to 2AC CX
1. Not necessarily.

2. No.

3. I agree that their primary concern is not the Constitution, but I disagree with your conclusion.

4. A. I'm not sure, actually.

B. Yes, that's correct.

5. No.

6. It's impossible to determine the number of victims of violent crimes committed by criminals released by the exclusionary rule.

_________________
- 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 Jan 14, 2012 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Response to follow up
1. If another measure could better fulfill the purpose of the original, defunct, law, the old law should be abolished and replaced with the new.

_________________
- 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: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
CX of 2NC
I apologize for the interruption.

1. Do murder laws have any deterrent effect?

2. Also, with murder laws serving as punishment/remedy - they serve this role by punishing the offender (murderer), right?

3. Roughly what percent of illegal searches are made in interest of personal safety?

4. If the Supreme Court intended the exclusionary rule to serve as recourse, why didn't they say so?

5. Are you interpreting my interpretation as "always trust the Supreme Court?"

6. On impacts, are you essentially saying that the release of guilty, violent criminals is not inherently harmful?

7. In your rapist analogy, what represents the evidence found by the illegal search?

8. On the Constitution, your position is that the use of illegally obtained evidence in trial violates individual rights, correct?

9. By your definition of "optional" in your first Advantage 1 point, is the exclusion of evidence, as it currently happens in the status quo, "optional?"

10. Did you respond to the latter portion of the deterrence card that said "[contempt of court] would be a more reliable deterrent?"

_________________
- 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: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Follow up
4. So you concede the point that the Supreme Court, who implemented the exclusionary rule, believes its purpose to be deterrence?

10. That's right, but if I remember correctly, one of them was that my evidence said "should" rather than "would." So this response ostensibly doesn't apply to the latter portion of that card, right?

_________________
- 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: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Follow up
4. I think you misunderstood the question. Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that the Supreme Court cited deterrence as the primary objective of the exclusionary rule?

_________________
- 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: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Thanks, I have no further questions.

_________________
- 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
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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