homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri May 26, 2017 8:26 am
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 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
We'll be following the outline set up in the rules thread for the most part, with the deadline for each speech or cx being one week after the previous speech. We're not going to be too strict with word count, as long as it's in the ballpark. Chaching would like to delete his 1AC immediately after the 1NC, so any judges who would like to keep a copy of it should probably get one right after he posts it. Judges who posted in the VDebates thread, please post again below, just so we know you're still ok with those rules. You may take your time getting decisions up. :) Chaching, go ahead and post your 1AC once all of the judges have posted below. Make sure to follow the format set up in the rules thread.

Judges confirmed:
Flash of light
kingwill
Wilberforce

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


Last edited by Zenith DC on Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Yup, I'm fine with those rules.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
I'm ready. Good luck and have fun!

_________________
- 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 Feb 09, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Wilberforce is also judging this right?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 494
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Turning invisible
Confirming.

_________________
~Caleb M. Peña, PROBE, STOA

O God, grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt -- Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Here it is (hope it posts right):

1AC
Maybe you grew up thinking that in America, people are innocent until proven guilty, and that the government can’t come in the night and take your property if you haven’t been convicted of a crime. While that’s the way it should be, the sad reality is that these are both untrue in America today. That’s why we urge you to affirm with us: That the United States federal government should substantially reform its revenue generation policies.

OBSERVATION 1. We offer the following DEFINITIONS
Substantial: “3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do b : considerable in quantity : significantly great” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantially)

Reform: “b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1299637740)

Policy: “2 b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1299638054)

Asset Forfeiture:
Stephen G. Rodriquez 2008. (Los Angeles criminal defense attorney) 9 Dec 2008 “Drug Related Asset Seizure” http://www.lacriminaldefenseblog.com/asset-forfeiture/
[QUOTE] “In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which gave federal prosecutors new forfeiture provisions to combat crime. Also created by this legislation was the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). The proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets such as real property, vehicles, businesses, financial instruments, vessels, aircraft and jewelry are deposited into the AFF and are subsequently used to further law enforcement initiatives.” [UNQUOTE]

Next we explain Revenue Generation by showing in context that asset forfeiture is federal revenue generation.
Dr Marian Williams, Dr Jefferson Holcomb, Dr Tomislav Kovandzic 2010. (Dr. Marian Williams PhD; assistant professor in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University ; Dr. Jefferson Holcomb, PhD; professor at Appalachian State Univ Dept of Political Science and Criminal Justice; Dr. Tomislav Kovandzic; PhD, professor at School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at Univ. of Texas-Dallas) Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf (brackets and internal quotes in original)
FBI agent and researcher Gregory Vecchi and criminal justice professor Robert Sigler note, “[W]hat is evident from their behavior is that federal, state, and local governments use assets forfeiture to generate revenue, despite their claims otherwise.”

OBSERVATION 2. INHERENCY, or the conditions of the present system.

A. Federal asset forfeiture is widespread and growing

Dr Marian Williams, Dr Jefferson Holcomb, Dr Tomislav Kovandzic 2010. (Dr. Marian Williams PhD; assistant professor in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University ; Dr. Jefferson Holcomb, PhD; professor at Appalachian State Univ Dept of Political Science and Criminal Justice; Dr. Tomislav Kovandzic; PhD, professor at School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at Univ. of Texas-Dallas) Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf
Federal reports also indicate widespread—and growing—use of asset forfeiture by federal agents and through equitable sharing. As Table 6 shows, from 2006 to 2008, currency deposits alone to the Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) exceeded $1 billion each year, with tens or even hundreds of millions more in property forfeitures. Annual financial statements indicate that these years had a few exceptionally high-value forfeitures (a single case of $337 million, three fraud cases totaling $842 million, and $443 million from five major cases); however, even after deducting the assets from these exceptional cases, deposits for these years are higher than in previous years.

B. States enabled. Federal asset forfeiture enables state asset forfeiture when state law won’t allow it
THE ECONOMIST 2010. (respected British news magazine) 27 May 2010, “A truck in the dock,” http://www.economist.com/node/16219747
Even in states where local rules make civil asset forfeiture hard, police can get around that problem by calling in the feds. After a joint operation by state and federal authorities, the proceeds are split. This is called “equitable sharing”. Police respond to these incentives exactly as you would expect them to. Where state law makes it tricky for them to seize property and hang on to it, they seize significantly more via “equitable sharing”, according to Marian Williams and Jeff Holcomb of Appalachian State University and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas, Dallas. Total federal seizures have exploded from $400m in 2001 to $1.3 billion in 2008. State data are patchier, but the trend appears to be sharply upward.

OBSERVATION 3. HARMS. Asset forfeiture is really bad.

HARM 1. Property Rights Assaulted.

A. Punished for being a suspect. The police can take your property without charging you with a crime

Scott Bullock 2010. (senior attorney at the Institute for Justice a public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia) introduction to “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf
Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Civil forfeiture is the power of law enforcement to seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Under this power, it is not necessary for the government to demonstrate that a property owner is guilty of criminal misconduct. Indeed, civil forfeiture can take place even when criminal charges are never filed against a property owner.

B. Quantification: 80% of forfeiture targets are never prosecuted for a crime
Dr Marian Williams, Dr Jefferson Holcomb, Dr Tomislav Kovandzic 2010. (Dr. Marian Williams PhD; assistant professor in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University ; Dr. Jefferson Holcomb, PhD; professor at Appalachian State Univ Dept of Political Science and Criminal Justice; Dr. Tomislav Kovandzic; PhD, professor at School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at Univ. of Texas-Dallas) Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf
In short, in the vast majority of states and at the federal level, the standard of proof required to forfeit an individual’s property is lower than the standard required to prove that the individual was guilty of the criminal activity that supposedly justified the forfeiture in the first place. Given this situation, it is not surprising that upwards of 80 percent of forfeitures occur absent a prosecution.

HARM 2. Policing for Profit.

A. Asset forfeiture leads to police abuse
Scott Bullock 2010. (senior attorney at the Institute for Justice a public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia) introduction to “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf (“pecuniary” means “financial”)
The changes to civil forfeiture that gave law enforcement agencies a percentage of forfeiture proceeds while also giving them the upper hand in forfeiture proceedings have created a powerful incentive: seize, forfeit and profit. But this pecuniary interest and the other advantages granted the government under civil forfeiture laws have distorted law enforcement priorities, altered officer and prosecutor behavior and led to a number of police and prosecutorial abuses.
B. Misguided law enforcement priorities. Instead of targeting violent crime, police target rich assets.
Eric Moores 2009. (J.D. Candidate, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law) “REFORMING THE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ACT” ARIZONA LAW REVIEW http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51- ... rev777.pdf
Opinion polls have shown that Americans prefer more vigorous enforcement of laws that threaten non-consenting parties, such as violence and fraud. Law enforcement agencies, however, have a greater incentive to pursue those who may be involved in drug crimes, as violent crime arrests produce fewer forfeitable assets than do drug crimes. For example, drug transactions that occur in houses present officers with the opportunity to seize the entire property. If they find drugs in an automobile they can pad a department’s budget by selling the vehicle at auction.

HARM 3. Guilty until proven innocent

A. The Problem: The burden is on the property owner to prove his innocence after his property is taken.
THE ECONOMIST 2010. (respected British news magazine) 27 May 2010, “A truck in the dock,” http://www.economist.com/node/16219747
An owner can usually challenge a seizure by arguing that he did not know his property was being used for criminal purposes. But in 38 out of 50 states, the burden of proof is on him to prove his innocence.

B. The Impact: Presumption of Innocence is a basic human right.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. (On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

HARM 4. The innocent are punished. Innocent owners have property taken

Stephen G. Rodriquez 2008. (Los Angeles criminal defense attorney) “You Could Lose Everything to Forfeiture or Seizure” 16 July 2008 http://www.lacriminaldefenseblog.com/asset-forfeiture/
Often rental property or land owners don't realize that illegal activity is taking place on their property, yet their property can still be seized. Innocent buyers may unwittingly purchase illegally obtained possessions that can be summarily taken by police.

OBSERVATION 4. We offer the following PLAN
1. Agency: Congress and the President.
2. Federal civil asset forfeiture is abolished except for enforcement of admiralty and customs laws.
3. Any asset forfeiture that remains in federal law must follow a criminal conviction of specific individuals.
4. Enforcement through the Justice Department and the federal courts. Any asset forfeiture cases not in compliance will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
5. No funding needed, since the plan is merely legislative and discontinues current actions.
6. Plan takes effect immediately upon an Affirmative ballot.
7. All Affirmative speeches may clarify the plan as needed.

OBSERVATION 5. SOLVENCY. The PLAN is the recommended way to fix the harms
Scott Bullock 2010. (senior attorney at the Institute for Justice a public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia) introduction to “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” March 2010 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/oth ... oemail.pdf
Given the undermining of property rights that civil forfeiture law inevitably entails, the abuses that have been documented in this report and elsewhere, and the research findings set forth here, what should be done? Here are some key recommendations: Ideally, civil forfeiture should be abolished, at least outside of its narrow historical use in enforcing admiralty and customs laws. Governments should have to tie forfeiture to criminal convictions of specific individuals.

Thank you. I now stand open for Cross-Examination


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
CX of 1AC
1. If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?

2. Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?

3. Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?

4. What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?

5. What are admiralty and customs laws?

6. Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?

7. Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?

8. Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?

9. Can drug crimes lead to violence?

10. Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?

11. Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?

12. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Response to CX of 1AC
Zenith DC wrote:
[hide="CX of 1AC"]

1. If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?

2. Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?

3. Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?

4. What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?

5. What are admiralty and customs laws?

6. Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?

7. Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?

8. Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?

9. Can drug crimes lead to violence?

10. Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?

11. Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?

12. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?


1. There are certainly a ton of people who are not given their full rights in Civil Asset Forfeiture
2. There is a not a lot of revenue that comes from Civil Asset Forfeiture, but certainly a substantial enough amount for us to be topical.
3. The Federal Government recieves some of the revenue the states get from civil Asset Forfeiture. This is certainly a revenue generating policy for the Feds. Although perhaps the states do recieve money through the process you described.
4. Oh I'm sure the government just wastes the revenue it gets from civil asset forfeiture (just like it wastes every tax dollar it gets ;) )
5. Those are some of the laws that allow Civil Asset Forfeiture.
6. I doubt it. If you would like to run that argument I would like to see evidence ;)
7. By banning some of the Federal Laws, we will be stopping a lot of states from doing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Because a lot of the states are able to confiscate property due to the Federal equitable sharing laws.
8. I believe most of the money goes to the police. That's why they police for profit. ;) A ton of it does go to the government though.
9. Violence is usually caused by money not drugs.
10. Probably a pretty substantial amount. It doesn't really matter, because justice is being robbed.
11. It's probably talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture in general, but it doesn't really matter since state and Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture both get revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture.
12. the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed what they thought the human rights are that every person should have. I think the UN is a reliable source.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Follow Up
Aff: If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?
Neg: There are certainly a ton of people who are not given their full rights in Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: Is that a yes, or a no?

Aff: Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?
Neg: There is a not a lot of revenue that comes from Civil Asset Forfeiture, but certainly a substantial enough amount for us to be topical.
Aff: But is it budgeted?

Aff: Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?
Neg: The Federal Government recieves some of the revenue the states get from civil Asset Forfeiture. This is certainly a revenue generating policy for the Feds. Although perhaps the states do recieve money through the process you described.
Aff: The revenue is actually conceived in the auctions, though, right?

Aff: What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?
Neg: Oh I'm sure the government just wastes the revenue it gets from civil asset forfeiture (just like it wastes every tax dollar it gets )
Aff: So you don’t know exactly what the government does with it?

Aff: What are admiralty and customs laws?
Neg: Those are some of the laws that allow Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: So by leaving those intact in mandate 2, you are also leaving civil asset forfeiture intact?

Aff: Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?
Neg: I doubt it. If you would like to run that argument I would like to see evidence

Aff: Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: By banning some of the Federal Laws, we will be stopping a lot of states from doing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Because a lot of the states are able to confiscate property due to the Federal equitable sharing laws.
Aff: Does that mean that this plan takes away the ability of the states to legalize civil asset forfeiture?

Aff: Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?
Neg: I believe most of the money goes to the police. That's why they police for profit. A ton of it does go to the government though.

Aff: Can drug crimes lead to violence?
Neg: Violence is usually caused by money not drugs.
Aff: But don’t people sell drugs for money?

Aff: Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?
Neg: Probably a pretty substantial amount. It doesn't really matter, because justice is being robbed.
Aff: Is protecting the people one of the primary duties of a just government?

Aff: Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?
Neg: It's probably talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture in general, but it doesn't really matter since state and Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture both get revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Aff: What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?
Neg: The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed what they thought the human rights are that every person should have. I think the UN is a reliable source.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Response to CX followup
Zenith DC wrote:
Aff: If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?
Neg: There are certainly a ton of people who are not given their full rights in Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: Is that a yes, or a no?

Aff: Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?
Neg: There is a not a lot of revenue that comes from Civil Asset Forfeiture, but certainly a substantial enough amount for us to be topical.
Aff: But is it budgeted?

Aff: Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?
Neg: The Federal Government recieves some of the revenue the states get from civil Asset Forfeiture. This is certainly a revenue generating policy for the Feds. Although perhaps the states do recieve money through the process you described.
Aff: The revenue is actually conceived in the auctions, though, right?

Aff: What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?
Neg: Oh I'm sure the government just wastes the revenue it gets from civil asset forfeiture (just like it wastes every tax dollar it gets )
Aff: So you don’t know exactly what the government does with it?

Aff: What are admiralty and customs laws?
Neg: Those are some of the laws that allow Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: So by leaving those intact in mandate 2, you are also leaving civil asset forfeiture intact?

Aff: Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?
Neg: I doubt it. If you would like to run that argument I would like to see evidence

Aff: Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: By banning some of the Federal Laws, we will be stopping a lot of states from doing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Because a lot of the states are able to confiscate property due to the Federal equitable sharing laws.
Aff: Does that mean that this plan takes away the ability of the states to legalize civil asset forfeiture?

Aff: Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?
Neg: I believe most of the money goes to the police. That's why they police for profit. A ton of it does go to the government though.

Aff: Can drug crimes lead to violence?
Neg: Violence is usually caused by money not drugs.
Aff: But don’t people sell drugs for money?

Aff: Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?
Neg: Probably a pretty substantial amount. It doesn't really matter, because justice is being robbed.
Aff: Is protecting the people one of the primary duties of a just government?

Aff: Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?
Neg: It's probably talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture in general, but it doesn't really matter since state and Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture both get revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Aff: What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?
Neg: The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed what they thought the human rights are that every person should have. I think the UN is a reliable source.


1. If someone is legally innocent they did not commit a crime
2. I'm not sure what you mean.
3. The Feds get the revenue from the states.
4. Yeah, but certainly nothing important.
5. We're totally abolishing Civil Asset Forfeiture by abolishing those laws.
7. We're banning it in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws.
9. Yes, but civil asset forfeiture doesn't cause violence.
10. Yeah, but I'm not sure what your point is.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Follow Up #2
Aff: If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?
Neg: There are certainly a ton of people who are not given their full rights in Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: Is that a yes, or a no?
Neg: If someone is legally innocent they did not commit a crime.

Aff: Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?
Neg: There is a not a lot of revenue that comes from Civil Asset Forfeiture, but certainly a substantial enough amount for us to be topical.
Aff: But is it budgeted?
Neg: I'm not sure what you mean.
Aff: Does the federal government include revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture in its budget?

Aff: Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?
Neg: The Federal Government recieves some of the revenue the states get from civil Asset Forfeiture. This is certainly a revenue generating policy for the Feds. Although perhaps the states do recieve money through the process you described.
Aff: The revenue is actually conceived in the auctions, though, right?
Neg: The Feds get the revenue from the states.
Aff: And the states get it from the auctions?

Aff: What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?
Neg: Oh I'm sure the government just wastes the revenue it gets from civil asset forfeiture (just like it wastes every tax dollar it gets )
Aff: So you don’t know exactly what the government does with it?
Neg: Yeah, but certainly nothing important.

Aff: What are admiralty and customs laws?
Neg: Those are some of the laws that allow Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: So by leaving those intact in mandate 2, you are also leaving civil asset forfeiture intact?
Neg: We're totally abolishing Civil Asset Forfeiture by abolishing those laws.
Aff: But your 1AC says you’re abolishing all of it except those laws, does it not?

Aff: Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?
Neg: I doubt it. If you would like to run that argument I would like to see evidence

Aff: Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: By banning some of the Federal Laws, we will be stopping a lot of states from doing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Because a lot of the states are able to confiscate property due to the Federal equitable sharing laws.
Aff: Does that mean that this plan takes away the ability of the states to legalize civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: We're banning it in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws.

Aff: Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?
Neg: I believe most of the money goes to the police. That's why they police for profit. A ton of it does go to the government though.

Aff: Can drug crimes lead to violence?
Neg: Violence is usually caused by money not drugs.
Aff: But don’t people sell drugs for money?
Neg: Yes, but civil asset forfeiture doesn't cause violence.

Aff: Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?
Neg: Probably a pretty substantial amount. It doesn't really matter, because justice is being robbed.
Aff: Is protecting the people one of the primary duties of a just government?
Neg: Yeah, but I'm not sure what your point is.
Aff: Does Civil Asset Forfeiture prevent crime?

Aff: Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?
Neg: It's probably talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture in general, but it doesn't really matter since state and Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture both get revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Aff: What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?
Neg: The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed what they thought the human rights are that every person should have. I think the UN is a reliable source.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Response to Follow Up #2
Zenith DC wrote:
Aff: If someone is legally innocent, does that necessarily mean that they did not commit a crime, or that their property was not used in a crime?
Neg: There are certainly a ton of people who are not given their full rights in Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: Is that a yes, or a no?
Neg: If someone is legally innocent they did not commit a crime.

Aff: Does the government currently include revenue from civil asset forfeiture in its budget?
Neg: There is a not a lot of revenue that comes from Civil Asset Forfeiture, but certainly a substantial enough amount for us to be topical.
Aff: But is it budgeted?
Neg: I'm not sure what you mean.
Aff: Does the federal government include revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture in its budget?

Aff: Does asset forfeiture, in and of itself, generate revenue, or does the revenue come from auctions after forfeiture?
Neg: The Federal Government recieves some of the revenue the states get from civil Asset Forfeiture. This is certainly a revenue generating policy for the Feds. Although perhaps the states do recieve money through the process you described.
Aff: The revenue is actually conceived in the auctions, though, right?
Neg: The Feds get the revenue from the states.
Aff: And the states get it from the auctions?

Aff: What does the government do with revenue accumulated through forfeiture?
Neg: Oh I'm sure the government just wastes the revenue it gets from civil asset forfeiture (just like it wastes every tax dollar it gets )
Aff: So you don’t know exactly what the government does with it?
Neg: Yeah, but certainly nothing important.

Aff: What are admiralty and customs laws?
Neg: Those are some of the laws that allow Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Aff: So by leaving those intact in mandate 2, you are also leaving civil asset forfeiture intact?
Neg: We're totally abolishing Civil Asset Forfeiture by abolishing those laws.
Aff: But your 1AC says you’re abolishing all of it except those laws, does it not?

Aff: Has the Supreme Court deemed civil asset forfeiture constitutional in the past?
Neg: I doubt it. If you would like to run that argument I would like to see evidence

Aff: Does your plan stop state civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: By banning some of the Federal Laws, we will be stopping a lot of states from doing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Because a lot of the states are able to confiscate property due to the Federal equitable sharing laws.
Aff: Does that mean that this plan takes away the ability of the states to legalize civil asset forfeiture?
Neg: We're banning it in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws.

Aff: Do forfeited assets go directly to state and federal governments, or are the police allowed to keep anything?
Neg: I believe most of the money goes to the police. That's why they police for profit. A ton of it does go to the government though.

Aff: Can drug crimes lead to violence?
Neg: Violence is usually caused by money not drugs.
Aff: But don’t people sell drugs for money?
Neg: Yes, but civil asset forfeiture doesn't cause violence.

Aff: Exactly how many cases of civil asset forfeiture were there in 2011?
Neg: Probably a pretty substantial amount. It doesn't really matter, because justice is being robbed.
Aff: Is protecting the people one of the primary duties of a just government?
Neg: Yeah, but I'm not sure what your point is.
Aff: Does Civil Asset Forfeiture prevent crime?

Aff: Does your solvency evidence refer specifically to federal civil asset forfeiture, or just to civil asset forfeiture in general?
Neg: It's probably talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture in general, but it doesn't really matter since state and Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture both get revenue from Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Aff: What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and why should we trust it?
Neg: The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed what they thought the human rights are that every person should have. I think the UN is a reliable source.


2. Civil Asset Forfeiture generates a tiny amount revenue, so I'm sure it is.
3. It doesn't matter if they do, we're talking about the feds here, and the feds get their money from the states.
5. Oh woops, I meant to say that those laws did not effect civil asset forfeiture in any way. Therefore by abolishing everything else except those laws we're abolishing civil asset forfeiture.
10. No Civil Asset Forfeiture does not prevent crime, because everyone that has their property taken away is innocent.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Sorry it's taking me so long to get the 1NC up, I should have it available by tonight or tomorrow night. I was hit by a wave of homework assignments last week that demanded top priority.

_________________
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 Feb 20, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
1NC
Maybe you grew up thinking that in America, right and wrong always look black and white, and due process can solve all our problems. Truth is, just because someone is legally innocent doesn’t mean that they haven’t committed a crime, and Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) is one of the most effective ways to catch criminals due process can’t get.

Since the Affirmative team didn’t present a criterion, a weighing mechanism the judge can use to simplify the round, the Negative team would like to provide the criterion of stock issues and net benefits to be used in this round. Unless the Affirmative team can prove, without a shadow of doubt, that their plan 1) is prima facie, upholding all four stock issues of Topicality, Inherency, Solvency, and Significance, and 2) has advantages which are more significant than its disadvantages, the Negative team should win the round.

In this speech, I’m going to first present three Topicality arguments, showing how the Affirmative plan fails to uphold the resolution we have been given to debate, and then launch into some on-case arguments. In the 2NC, I will bring up the disadvantages to the Affirmative case, and show why they outweigh its advantages.

That said, let’s start with Topicality. Please keep in mind that this stock issue is an absolute voting issue, meaning that if you aren’t sure that the Affirmative plan is topical after this round, a Negative ballot is warranted.

The first reason why the Affirmative plan doesn’t actually affirm the resolution you may flow as
Topicality 1: Civil Asset Forfeiture isn’t intended to generate revenue.
It is reasonable to say that a revenue generation policy’s purpose must be to generate revenue. This is the standard, what the Affirmative plan must do to be a revenue generation policy. There are two reasons to prefer our standard to any that may be presented by the Affirmative team.
1. Common Man and Original Intent: If you ask an ordinary person what "revenue generation policy" is, they would think of something like the income tax - not something like Civil Asset Forfeiture. "Primarily intended to raise revenue" is a clear, common-sense standard, and it's almost certainly what the framers of the resolution wanted us to be debating about.
2. Topic Explosion: If you let the Affirmative classify anything that affects revenue as "revenue generation policy", the resolution becomes impossibly broad. Nuking China would be topical, for example, because it would depress the global economy, which affects the government's revenue. My partner and I hit a case twice to sell jets to Taiwan—a plan like this would make it topical for the government to sell pencils. This defeats the whole point of having a resolution. It's also incredibly unfair: without any limits, we have no idea what they're going to run, so the Affirmative team would win every round. Debating about a specific topic - in this case, how the government actually tries to raise revenue - is essential to preserving the educational quality of debate.
Now that we know the standard that determines what a revenue generation policy is and the reasons to prefer it over other standards, let’s take a look at where the Affirmative plan violates the standard.
I asked in cross-examination if the Affirmative team knew whether or not the government currently budgets the revenue coming in from Civil Asset Forfeiture. Chaching replied that it probably does, since the government does generate a little bit of money from forfeiture. The government doesn’t, however, budget all of its revenue, because some revenue comes on the spur of the moment, and isn’t a result of a revenue generation policy. An example of this is a sale that the government makes halfway through the year, and didn’t know of when it was creating its budget. Civil Asset Forfeiture is one such policy. Since the budget is where the government records how it plans to make revenue, chaching didn’t know for sure that the purpose of civil asset forfeiture is to generate revenue! Furthermore, the government itself says that the purpose of Civil Asset Forfeiture is crime prevention, not revenue generation.

John L. Worrall [Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas; Ph.D., political science from Washington State University; Editor of Police Quarterly; Associate Director of the W.W. Caruth Dallas Police Institute], “Asset Forfeiture,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Response Guide Series No. 7, ISBN: 1-932582-90-8, November 2008 [Ethos]
“In response to negative publicity and criticism of forfeiture (especially civil forfeiture), the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture drafted a National Code of Professional Conduct for Asset Forfeiture (see Appendix C). It consists of “ten commandments” to federal agencies on the proper use of asset forfeiture. Not long after the National Code of Professional Conduct was drafted, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) assembled a task force that developed its Guidelines for Civil Asset Forfeiture (see Appendix D). The NDAA guidelines have been adopted in several states. In general, these documents emphasize that the core purpose of forfeiture is enforcement, not revenue generation. They also place great emphasis on avoiding corruption, ensuring procedural fairness, and maintaining accountability.”
Since the Affirmative team has the burden of proof, unless it can prove that the government budgets money for Civil Asset Forfeiture and that the purpose of forfeiture is to generate revenue, the Affirmative plan should be considered non-topical.

The second reason why the Affirmative plan doesn’t actually affirm the resolution you may flow as
Topicality 2: Forfeiture doesn’t generate revenue—auctions do.
The standard for this argument is that a revenue generation policy must be a policy that generates revenue. That is fairly obvious. The reasons to prefer this standard are the same reasons I listed to prefer the standard for Topicality 1—common man/original intent and topic explosion.
The affirmative plan violates this standard because it doesn’t directly reform a policy that generates revenue. Chaching evasively answered my questions on this in cross-examination, so I’m just going to let you know myself that taking property, in and of itself, doesn’t generate revenue. Auctions that sell the property after the forfeiture are what generate revenue. Thus, if the Affirmative plan were topical, it would have to directly reform auction policy, not forfeiture policy. Since the plan doesn’t address the auctions, however, it is not topical, and since Topicality is an absolute voting issue, a Negative ballot is warranted.

The third and final reason why the Affirmative plan doesn’t actually affirm the resolution you may flow as
Topicality 3: Civil Asset Forfeiture isn’t a substantial part of our revenue generation policies.
The standard for this argument is that a substantial revenue generation policy should be one that generates a significant amount of the government’s revenue, proportionate to other revenue generation policies, and the reasons to prefer are the same ones I listed for Topicality 1 and Topicality 2.
Why, of all things the things the Affirmative team could have reformed, did it pick Civil Asset Forfeiture? It could have tried to solve for unemployment or tax complexity, but instead it picked forfeiture policy. Even if the judge determines that Civil Asset Forfeiture is a revenue generation policy, as the
Affirmative team itself admitted in cross-examination, “Civil Asset Forfeiture generates a tiny amount of revenue.” It could have dealt with the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the estate tax, the gift tax, the capital gains tax, and many more, but instead the Affirmative team chose to reform forfeiture policy. This is an abuse of the resolution, and makes the Affirmative plan non-topical. That concludes my arguments on Topicality.

I will now address the harms listed in the Affirmative case. I believe chaching labeled Harm 1 as Inherency B, so I have relabeled it as Harm 1, but he is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong. The argument was that Federal forfeiture law keeps the states from legislating for themselves.

My first response to this you may flow as
Significance 1: The evidence in Harm 1 doesn’t back the claim.
The evidence listed under the tag says nothing of states not allowing Civil Asset Forfeiture. Rather, it talks about what is required to forfeit someone’s property. This leads us to the
Impact: The harm is not proven.
Since it is not backed by evidence, and the Affirmative team has the burden to prove its harms, Harm 1 may be considered nonexistent.

My second response to this harm you may flow as
Turn/Solvency 1: The plan restricts the states’ ability to legislate even more.
As the
Affirmative team itself said in cross-examination, they are “banning [Civil Asset Forfeiture] in a ton of states by banning it federally, because of the equitable sharing laws.” This takes away the states’ right to legislate for themselves, and is not constitutional. This leads to the
Impact: Unconstitutionality and contradictory philosophy.
If it is going to claim infringement on the states’ rights as a harm, the Affirmative team should make sure the states have the right to legislate after the plan is enacted.

Harm 2 in the Affirmative team’s case is that Civil Asset Forfeiture is used to police for profit. They said that this is bad because it takes the focus away from violent crime and lead to a focus on drug crimes. I have two responses to this.

My first response is
Significance 2: Civil Asset Forfeiture forfeits property involved in crime.

Karis Ann-Yu Chi [J.D., School of Law, University of California, Berkeley], “Follow the Money: Getting to the Root of the Problem with Civil Asset Forfeiture in California,” California Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1635-1673, October 2002 [Ethos]
“Financial gain is the obvious motive for many crimes. Ironically, this motive also explains the problematic behavior of law enforcement agencies involved in civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is a process by which the government seizes property suspected of having a connection to illegal drugs or other criminal activities and then remits the proceeds to the law enforcement agencies that participated in the seizure. This distribution scheme gives law enforcement agents, including police and prosecutors, a direct financial stake in civil asset forfeiture proceeds and creates a powerful incentive for law enforcement agencies to initiate and participate in forfeiture actions.”
This leads to the
Impact: Justice accompanies profit.
It isn’t a bad thing that police collect revenue through forfeiture. As long as justice is being done and profit is accompanied by law enforcement, it is perfectly ok for the police to reap the fruit of their work.

My second argument on this harm is
Solvency 2: Drug crimes lead to violence.
In cross-examination, chaching said that violence is usually caused by money, not drugs. However, as he admits in his own harms, drugs translate to money, because they can be sold for a high price. This leads to the
Impact: Abolishing Civil Asset Forfeiture doesn’t prevent violence.
Forfeiture is one of our most effective ways of fighting drug crimes.

Brian J. Henchey [Attorney specializing in business law], “LLI Backgrounder on Forfeiture,” Legal Information Institute [legal information organized by topic from Cornell Law School], July 5, 1999 http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/ [Ethos]
“Forfeiture, the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity, has been a major weapon in the Federal government's "war on drugs" since the mid-eighties. Two recent developments, however, have called attention to the darker side of this practice: a decision by New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, to deploy forfeiture against drunk drivers, and a House-approved bill that would, if signed into law, drastically narrow the scope of the federal forfeiture statutes. Forfeiture is a potent deterent, as well as a revenue source on which law enforcement has grown increasingly dependent. However, it brings with it far fewer procedural safeguards than the criminal law.”
The Affirmative team is scrapping forfeiture. This will lead to more drug crimes, which will lead to more violence.

Harm 3 in the Affirmative case is that people are assumed guilty until proven innocent. My response to this is
Significance 3: Legal innocence isn’t real innocence.
Just because someone is legally innocent doesn’t mean that they haven’t committed a crime. The reason why police seize the property of “innocent” people is that the property’s involvement in a crime is usually so blatantly obvious that a trial is unnecessary. In fact, at least 80% of forfeitures are uncontested by the people whom the police seized the property from.

Stefan D. Cassella 2007. (Deputy Chief for Legal Policy, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, U.S. Department of Justice) 27 Sept 2007 The Case for Civil Forfeiture: Why In Rem Proceedings are an Essential Tool for Recovering the Proceeds of Crime, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... n_cassella
If you file a forfeiture action directly against the property, and no one files a claim, the property may be forfeited to the State directly without any judicial forfeiture proceeding. In effect, the property is forfeited by default. In the United States, 80 percent of our seizures for forfeiture are uncontested. In many of those cases there is a criminal prosecution, but if the forfeiture is going to be uncontested, a lot of time and effort is saved by handling the forfeiture as an uncontested civil matter against the property.
This leads to the
Impact: Victims aren’t really innocent.
The Negative team agrees that we must presume that someone is innocent when we try them. Victims of forfeiture, however, are so obviously guilty that a trial is unnecessary. If someone broke into your house and rushed at you, would you hesitate to shoot them if you had a gun? Probably not. Forfeiture works the same way—you don’t need to stop and ask someone if they want to hurt you before you prevent them from doing it, so long as their intention is obviously to do you harm.

The fourth and final harm was that the innocent are punished, and that innocent owners have property taken. This is essentially the same point as Harm 3, and you may cross-apply Significance 3 to it.

I would like to point out, before concluding, that the solvency evidence offered by the Affirmative team deals with both criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture, not civil asset forfeiture specifically.

For these reasons—that the Affirmative plan is not topical, that its harms are insignificant, and that will not solve for them—I recommend a Negative ballot. Thank you. I am now ready for cross-examination.

_________________
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 Feb 26, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
CX of 1NC
1. If one has no intentions of robbing a bank, but does rob a bank, would that make him a thief?
2. If I was to receive revenue from a business would that be revenue generating policy for me?
3. How much police abuse could happen in our country?
4. Why did the US try to reform CAF in 2000, is it because CAF may have had some problems?
5. How important are property rights?
6. How many states have loose CAF laws?
7. How important are a person’s rights?
8. Did you present any evidence that specifically said the victims of CAF are guilty?
9. Is a person alleged of a crime supposed to be guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty in America?
10. Are there any cases of CAF involving drug crimes?
11. Did you present any evidence about the state CAF laws, or are you making assumptions?
12. Have drug crimes gone down due to Civil Asset Forfeiture?
13. Did you present a definition of substantial?

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Response to CX of 1NC
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: 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: 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: 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.

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.

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: 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.

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

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: Have drug crimes gone down due to Civil Asset Forfeiture?
Neg: Yes, they have, as my evidence stated.

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.

_________________
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 Mar 04, 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
Follow up #2
1. Does it matter if the government has intentions of generating revenue through CAF?
2. So if the government received revenue from something that would be a revenue generation policy correct?
3. Okay so we agree police abuse can happen correct?
6. Lol, sounds like you didn’t understand what I was saying. What do you think the Federal equitable sharing laws are?
8. How high a cost are attorney fees to defend oneself in court?
9. Well of course we can’t just assume that a person is guilty, right?
11. Do you know what the equitable sharing laws are, and how it works?
12. Is that empirically proven or is the source just assuming that?
13. Did you present any evidence on how much revenue CAF generates?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Response to Followup
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.

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.

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.

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


Last edited by Zenith DC on Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:23 am 
Offline

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

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 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