homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:06 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  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:50 pm
Posts: 391
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Falling at a 60° angle, defying physics
I accidentally archived the previous thread on this topic while archiving all the previous case discussions from last year, so here's a new one.

I haven't started researching yet, but what are people's general thoughts on the resolution this year? What concise summaries of the system would be good to begin research? Any case ideas early on?

_________________
Andrew

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

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Two good ideas:

1. Split the ninth circuit.
PRO: http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2 ... broken-up/
CON: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorial ... 593963.php

2. Losers pay (English rule)
PRO: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjr_11.htm
CON: http://newtalk.org/2008/08/would-loser- ... te-fri.php

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Pumaman! Why you lock mah thread?!?!?!?!!! :lol:

I'll transfer some of the stuff I still wanted answered to this thread:
In The locked thread I wrote:
Has anyone found some really interesting and helpful material that concisely (like, fewer than 100 pages or is HIGHLY comprehensive) covers the issue?

These Videos helped me out with the structure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_mbk0YhLa0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7_Qz1QRZek

The Federalist Papers are also probably a good place to get started: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/178 ... ers/(80-85)

Are there any particular cases that we need to know inside and out (everyone knows Brown vs. Board of Education, or Citizens United vs. FEC)?

What are some of the biggest misconceptions about the court system? I've always been under the impression that the Courts have way too much power and that the legislative and executive branches and the states do have the power (though they rarely execute it) to overturn or ignore judicial decisions. In that case though, what power does the judiciary actually hold?


Another link who's title I found interesting was "Twelve things Debaters should know about Law". I haven't finished reading it yet.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
Here's the link to another article that may be useful in regards to splitting the ninth circuit:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/split-ninth-circuit.htm

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
If I debate, I'll probably run Mandatory Minimums again–that case is pretty near undefeatable. :D :D :D

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:37 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Not sure how this would run as a case, but the American Bar Association has a pretty comprehensive report on federal sentencing for economic crimes: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Having a Judicial Nominating Advisory Commission, formed of bipartisan committees in each state, sounds pretty reasonable: http://www.justiceatstake.org/issues/fe ... minations/

But if anyone finds a way to tie the Middle East into the federal court system, let me know... I miss it :roll:

_________________
Hannah David (R5)
2010-2011 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2011-2012 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2012-2013 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2013-2014 | David/Zitter (Q'd to Nats)
2014-2015 | David/Zitter (6th at Nats)

2015-2016 | David/David


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
If I debate, I'll probably run Mandatory Minimums again–that case is pretty near undefeatable. :D :D :D

I ran that case. I wouldn't say it's undefeatable, but it is quite good. :P Especially if you don't run the Constitution stuff and focus on the legit harms.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
mountain dude wrote:
If I debate, I'll probably run Mandatory Minimums again–that case is pretty near undefeatable. :D :D :D


It was quite a good case. I'm undecided about the topicality of cases like this, though. It's easy to contest the idea that a reform to specific sentencing laws (like MMS or capital punishment) does not amount to a change of the court system itself.

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
mountain dude wrote:
If I debate, I'll probably run Mandatory Minimums again–that case is pretty near undefeatable. :D :D :D


It was quite a good case. I'm undecided about the topicality of cases like this, though. It's easy to contest the idea that a reform to specific sentencing laws (like MMS or capital punishment) does not amount to a change of the court system itself.


I think mandatory minimums is topical because it's dealing with a broad swath of federal laws which regulate the court system. I'd justify it by saying that ending unconstitutional regulations on a system constitutes a change for the better to that system.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
mountain dude wrote:
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
mountain dude wrote:
If I debate, I'll probably run Mandatory Minimums again–that case is pretty near undefeatable. :D :D :D


It was quite a good case. I'm undecided about the topicality of cases like this, though. It's easy to contest the idea that a reform to specific sentencing laws (like MMS or capital punishment) does not amount to a change of the court system itself.


I think mandatory minimums is topical because it's dealing with a broad swath of federal laws which regulate the court system. I'd justify it by saying that ending unconstitutional regulations on a system constitutes a change for the better to that system.


How exactly are MMS laws regulations on the court system?

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
How exactly are MMS laws regulations on the court system?

They are sentencing statues that courts use. Abolishing them reforms the court system. Kind of self-evident.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Not at all. The argument would be that a change that leaves a major element of the system completely untouched is not a change to the system, but merely a change to discrete entities that coincidentally are parts of the system.

The 1974 National Maximum Speed Limit law significantly reformed the entire interstate highway system, because it capped the speed limits on all highways at 55, later raised to 65, by using the threat of pulling federal funds. But a law that capped the speed limit only on highway loops surrounding major cities wouldn't be a reform to the interstate highway system. And changes to mandatory minimums do zero to federal civil courts. The argument, therefore, would be that you reform the federal criminal court system, which is not what the topic says.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
The laws require judges to sentence criminals within a range. Removing those regulations is congressional reform to the court system. I think we can all agree that sentencing is crucial to the federal court system–improving the sentencing process, in my mind, is a significant reform to the federal court system.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Not at all. The argument would be that a change that leaves a major element of the system completely untouched is not a change to the system, but merely a change to discrete entities that coincidentally are parts of the system.

*Sigh* Not this type of argument again, I thought this died UN year. :P

You don't have to reform the ENTIRE court system, the resolution doesn't say this. If you reform PART of the court system you are "reforming the court system." If only plans that reformed the entire court system were topical, there would be pretty much no cases you could possibly run.

And yes, it is a change to entities that are part of the system...which is itself, pretty much by definition, a reform to the system itself. If you change entities inside the system that IS a reform to the system itself.

DrSraderNCU wrote:
The 1974 National Maximum Speed Limit law significantly reformed the entire interstate highway system, because it capped the speed limits on all highways at 55, later raised to 65, by using the threat of pulling federal funds. But a law that capped the speed limit only on highway loops surrounding major cities wouldn't be a reform to the interstate highway system.

Why not?

Also, according to your brightline for what's topical, even reforming the speed limit for the entire highway still wouldn't be topical, because it "leaves major elements of the system completely untouched" such as rules for what types of cars you can drive, where we build highways, etc.

DrSraderNCU wrote:
And changes to mandatory minimums do zero to federal civil courts. The argument, therefore, would be that you reform the federal criminal court system, which is not what the topic says.

Wait, so you're saying any change has to reform federal AND civil courts?? Now pretty much nothing is going to be topical. Also, why draw the line there? If you really need to reform every part of the system at once in order to be topical, wouldn't that mean that you have to reform all civil courts, all criminal courts, all appellate courts, all district courts, AND the supreme court all at once in order to be topical?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
Cyberknight is right. Once you make that brightline-that it can't leave major elements of the system completely untouched-that excludes a ridiculous amount of cases from an already narrow topic.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
The difference between this topic and the UN topic is that the UN topic didn't contain the word "system." Reforming one element of a system is not systemic reform. If, out of an entire family of alcoholics, one stops drinking, that doesn't reform the family system. If all but one stop drinking, the system hasn't been reformed. And when Pluto stopped being a planet, that had only trivial implications for the solar system. It was a change in how we understood Pluto, not a systemic change.

It's possible this argument won't gain any traction. The arguments that win in any debate community are the product of a lot of sociological forces woven up together. But the idea that it's a bad argument or an unwinnable one is just flat wrong. I could prep a team to run it against you, and they'd beat you so severely, your grandchildren would be born cross-eyed.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
DrSraderNCU wrote:
I could prep a team to run it against you, and they'd beat you so severely, your grandchildren would be born cross-eyed.

I highly doubt that. :P Seriously though, I have faced this argument like a trillion times with various resolutions and never lost once to it.

Quote:
The difference between this topic and the UN topic is that the UN topic didn't contain the word "system." Reforming one element of a system is not systemic reform.

How is it any different? People UN year argued that unless you change every part of the UN, it isn't reforming the UN. In the exact same way, you are arguing that unless you change every part of a system, you aren't changing the system. Whether the word is "UN" or "system" makes no clear difference to the argument.

Quote:
Reforming one element of a system is not systemic reform.

Warrants? ;)

Any common man off the street will tell you that changing one part of a system counts as changing the system. If you "fix your car" you don't have to replace every single piece of your car. If you "change a system" you don't have to effect every part of the system. There's absolutely no logical reason why you would.

Quote:
If, out of an entire family of alcoholics, one stops drinking, that doesn't reform the family system.

That's a false analogy. The reason that doesn't reform the family system is because it doesn't remove any problems, because there's a trend that exist throughout the family, and it doesn't stop that trend. That's why it's not a real change to the system, not because it only affects one person.

Think of it this way. What if only one person in the family was an alcoholic, and then he stopped. That would be a reform to the family system, even though it only affects one person.

Quote:
And when Pluto stopped being a planet, that had only trivial implications for the solar system. It was a change in how we understood Pluto, not a systemic change.

This is another false analogy. Recognizing Pluto as not a planet was not a systematic change, because it wasn't a change at all. Nothing about the solar system changed. Obviously, if you don't change anything, it's not a systematic change.

If we had blown up Pluto, that certainly would have been a change to our solar system. ;)

Also, just to clarify: What WOULD be topical under this year's resolution? A whole-res case? I can't think of anything else that would. Any reform is just going to fix one part of the court system, I can't think of any way you could alter all the parts at once.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
@DrSraderNCU-Mandatory Minimums are much more than 'one element' of the system. They require all judges to sentence all criminals within a specified range if they are guilty of any crime which carries a mandatory minimum/maximum sentence. I think you're the one who is interpreting the resolution wrong-but I think it comes down to your definition of reform, not system. Reform is (from Webster) "to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses." Mandatory Minimums are an abuse of Congress's power over the judicial branch of government. Purging that abuse and restoring the freedom to sentence criminals to the judiciary (which is where it belongs) is definitely topical.

DrSraderNCU wrote:
It's possible this argument won't gain any traction. The arguments that win in any debate community are the product of a lot of sociological forces woven up together. But the idea that it's a bad argument or an unwinnable one is just flat wrong. I could prep a team to run it against you, and they'd beat you so severely, your grandchildren would be born cross-eyed.


No argument is unwinnable. Our Region 5 champion this year went negative and ran a source indictment on the basis that the aff evidence was dated April Fools' Day, and a DA that the affirmative team was advocating Nazi idealogies. My old debate partner won with a case to legalize all drugs in all UN states three years ago. Any argument can win. That being said, this argument makes the bottom of my list. By your logic, under the criminal justice resolution, the case has to reform every element of it: apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing. I don't think I saw a single case all year which did that. Hey, this argument might technically work fine if you use the right definition with the right interpretations, but it's not realistic when you look closer.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
I shall run a case to abolish all Federal Jurisdiction over sports-related suits. #ChainBrady!

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
Voice of Reason wrote:
I shall run a case to abolish all Federal Jurisdiction over sports-related suits. #ChainBrady!

I know pretty much nothing about sports... but why exactly *does* the judicial system have jurisdiction over sports penalties and such?


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 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