homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:17 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  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Zenith DC wrote:
chaching wrote:
Please don't mix up the first and second questions. Also please label them as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. so that we can make this less confusing. Obviously 1 applies to question 1 just like 2 applies to question 2.

And of course I'm sure that you know where to put them David.........you seemed to not get confused last time :P

Sorry...just go with what is in my followup, and I won't mix them up again. What you labeled as a followup to question 1 was so obviously not along the lines of what you said in question 1 that I grouped it with question 2.


Dude just make them separate. I can help you if you want. ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
chaching wrote:
Zenith DC wrote:
chaching wrote:
Please don't mix up the first and second questions. Also please label them as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. so that we can make this less confusing. Obviously 1 applies to question 1 just like 2 applies to question 2.

And of course I'm sure that you know where to put them David.........you seemed to not get confused last time :P

Sorry...just go with what is in my followup, and I won't mix them up again. What you labeled as a followup to question 1 was so obviously not along the lines of what you said in question 1 that I grouped it with question 2.


Dude just make them separate. I can help you if you want. ;)

I've edited it. You can post your next round or your 2AC as soon as you'd like.

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Chaching, will you be posting your next followup or your 2AC soon?

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Zenith DC wrote:
Chaching, will you be posting your next followup or your 2AC soon?


Well since it looks like I have words for about 2 or 3 more questions I'll be posting my next followup. ;) I'll try and get that up sometime soon.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Woops I totally forgot about this. :oops: Here's my followup:

Followup #3
6. Don’t you think you might be miss-interpreting what I’m saying? When did I say that?
11. Did I ever say it in those words?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Response to Followup #3
1. Aff: If one has no intentions of robbing a bank, but does rob a bank, would that make him a thief?
Neg: In the sense that manslaughter is still a crime although the criminal had no intention of killing the victim, yes, it would.
Aff: Does it matter if the government has intentions of generating revenue through CAF?
Neg: Yes, it does, as I explained in my standard and reasons to prefer for that Topicality argument.

2. Aff: If I was to receive revenue from a business would that be revenue generating policy for me?
Neg: It depends on how or why you received the revenue from the business, and whether or not you planned on receiving it. If you would like a more specific answer, please ask a more specific question.
Aff: So if the government received revenue from something that would be a revenue generation policy correct?
Neg: No, they have to plan on receiving that money in the budget.

3. Aff: How much police abuse could happen in our country?
Neg: Theoretically, the police could rise to the status of an Orwellian KGB, but I don't think that's how you meant the question...in light of what circumstances are you asking it?
Aff: Okay so we agree police abuse can happen correct?
Neg: Of course! But in the case of CAF, that is a flaw in the people abusing the policy, if it is indeed abused, not a flaw in the policy itself--and I should add that what abuse does occur is far outweighed by the crime prevention that occurs as a result of drug seizure.

4. Aff: Why did the US try to reform CAF in 2000, is it because CAF may have had some problems?
Neg: It may have been. If so, those problems are probably already solved, and your plan is unnecessary. If you would like to make that point in future speeches, I will be happy to address it.

5. Aff: How important are property rights?
Neg: Property rights are very important, but if property jeopardizes safety, I think we can all agree that safety is more important, especially when the owner has no right to the property due to its use in illegal activities. Remember that at least 80% of forfeiture "victims" don't even make an appeal to get their stuff back, which suggests that they obviously used it illegally, and legal innocence doesn't always mean real innocence.

6. Aff: How many states have loose CAF laws?
Neg: I'm not sure. But I am sure that by banning equitable sharing you would be restricting the states' right to legislate--that's pretty obvious, according to your own words in cross-examination.
Aff: Lol, sounds like you didn’t understand what I was saying. What do you think the Federal equitable sharing laws are?
Neg: I believe that is yours to explain, since you are the one trying to repeal them. But the fact remains that you said that by repealing them the states won't be able to legislate for themselves.
Aff: Don’t you think you might be miss-interpreting what I’m saying? When did I say that?
Neg: In the cross-examination of the 1AC, you said that you are "banning [Civil Asset Forfeiture] in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws."

7. Aff: How important are a person’s rights?
Neg: A person's rights are very important, and abolishing CAF would most certainly jeopardize public safety, which is a right as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. This is perhaps the primary reason why we are resolved that CAF isn't a bad thing and we should stick with the status quo.

8. Aff: Did you present any evidence that specifically said the victims of CAF are guilty?
Neg: While I didn't bring up evidence specifically saying that they are guilty, I brought up a lot of evidence suggesting that they are--for instance, the evidence saying that at least 80% of forfeitures are uncontested and the evidence saying that the property forfeited in CAF is supposed to be involved in a crime.
Aff: How high a cost are attorney fees to defend oneself in court?
Neg: They tend to be high. But if that is the reason why people don't go to court to get stuff back, then their property obviously isn't worth much and the case is insignificant. Additionally, there are many lawyers who will take up cases cost-free in certain situations. If police obviously did abuse forfeiture laws, one of these free lawyers would probably take up the victim's cause.

9. Aff: Is a person alleged of a crime supposed to be guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty in America?
Neg: Legally, we must assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, and there is usually so much evidence that a person is guilty before a forfeiture that the need for speedy forfeiture and the evidence in favor of forfeiture make a trial unnecessary. This is supported by the fact that at least 80% of forfeitures are uncontested--in reality, forfeiture ought to be considered a gracious policy, because the people whose property is forfeited probably deserved a lot worse than the forfeiture.
Aff: Well of course we can’t just assume that a person is guilty, right?
Neg: Obviously. That is why police are supposed to have a ton of evidence that property was involved in a crime before they forfeit it.

10. Aff: Are there any cases of CAF involving drug crimes?
Neg: Yes, there are, as the evidence I read earlier obviously implied.

11. Aff: Did you present any evidence about the state CAF laws, or are you making assumptions?
Neg: I'm not making any assumptions. You yourself haven't brought up any evidence on the topic, as I said in my analysis of Harm 1. The only claim I made about the states is that your plan would restrict their right to legislate, which you admitted in the cross-examination of the 1AC.
Aff: Do you know what the equitable sharing laws are, and how it works?
Neg: So far, I don't know a lot about them except for what you have said about them: that repealing them would restrict the states' right to legislate.
Aff: Did I ever say it in those words?
Neg: In the cross-examination of the 1AC, you said that you are "banning [Civil Asset Forfeiture] in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws."

12. Aff: Have drug crimes gone down due to Civil Asset Forfeiture?
Neg: Yes, they have, as my evidence stated.
Aff: Is that empirically proven or is the source just assuming that?
Neg: I'm pretty sure it's empirically proven. Unless you'd like to say otherwise with evidence, since the only evidence brought up so far says drug crimes have gone down due to CAF, I think it's safe to assume that it is.

13. Aff: Did you present a definition of substantial?
Neg: I accepted yours, and gave a reasonable standard saying how we ought to interpret that definition--namely, that a substantial reform to our revenue generation policies must be one that reforms a policy that generates a significant amount of the government’s revenue, proportionate to other revenue generation policies.
Aff: Did you present any evidence on how much revenue CAF generates?
Neg: No, but you yourself said that the amount was "tiny" in your response to question 2 in the followup #2 of the cross-examination of the 1AC, and the amount is obviously far less in comparison than that generated by income taxes, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, tariffs, etc.


Chaching, please start posting in the proper format, because it is burning a lot of my time to have to put your questions where they belong in the block of text. Thanks. :)

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Chaching, will you be posting your 2AC any time soon?

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Zenith DC wrote:
Chaching, will you be posting your 2AC any time soon?


I've been pretty busy lately. So I may not be able to post for a while.
I'll try and get it up as soon as I can.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
chaching wrote:
Zenith DC wrote:
Chaching, will you be posting your 2AC any time soon?


I've been pretty busy lately. So I may not be able to post for a while.
I'll try and get it up as soon as I can.

You really should get it up soon for the judges. It's been a while. :)

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Wilberforce wrote:
Confirming.

It was a pleasure to meet you at the Epilogue, Caleb! :)

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Looks like this debate is a little outdated...sorry judges, but I think we should call it off.

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Zenith DC wrote:
Looks like this debate is a little outdated...sorry judges, but I think we should call it off.


Yeah, sorry I completely forgot about this ;) But since we have a new resolution we probably should go debate something else now.

_________________
OIW (Obama Isn't Working): http://obamaisntworking.com/splash/stop-the-spending/

Is the private sector doing "fine"? Check this out: http://obamaisntworking.com/videos/


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

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