BREAKING NEWS: Eminent Domain
posted by Jon Cruz on December 1st, 2005
RIPON, WI - The National Forensic League has just announced the January/February resolution. It reads:
Resolved: The use of the state’s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust.
Popularity: 2%
no more tag found, sorry
104 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Eminent Domain”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Andy Werner Wins the Blake Edie Holiday Tournament
- 2005 in Review: Themes
- Alta (Temporarily) Concludes After Quarters
- BREAKING NEWS: Eminent Domain
- North Dakota Bans Public Forum Resolution
- MBA Extemp Round Robin Announced
- Public Forum Debate December Topic Analysis
- Caitlin Halpern Wins the Princeton Classic
- Patrick Mahoney Wins the UT Longhorn Classic
- Topic for Debate: Stanley Tookie Williams
Posted from: 136.167.228.223
December 1st, 2005 05:43
Hooray NDF camp tournament topic
Posted from: 68.229.62.8
December 1st, 2005 05:49
Yay ndf
topic is a little boring but its not the worst they could have chosen
Posted from: 136.167.228.223
December 1st, 2005 05:49
Hooray misspelling my own name
Posted from: 67.124.224.207
December 1st, 2005 06:45
oh dear yes.
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
December 1st, 2005 06:57
My first reaction is that:
1. This topic deals with areas of the law that haven’t been discussed in LD for a looooong time, if ever;
2. The topic seems harder to negate than to affirm, which should help even things out on the circuit.
I’m quite excited.
Posted from: 68.237.216.75
December 1st, 2005 07:01
i like this topic
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 1st, 2005 07:06
The revision of the topic’s initial wording improved it a lot, and perhaps it’s just because of my political leanings, but I think Dave’s observation is correct.
Posted from: 12.215.187.156
December 1st, 2005 07:18
I think this is a great topic. I must caution debaters though. The legal jurisprudence around eminent domain is very long and very complex. Making cogent and correct arguments will be more difficult. There will be no room for the crap kids pulled on the judicial activism topic — i.e., making embarassingly bad and false claims.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 1st, 2005 07:37
Debaters should of course start with reading Kelo:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
Move on from there to the major cases cited, and the associated literature discussing Kelo (both in anticipation of the case, and the fall-out).
Great topic! Nice job!
Posted from: 134.84.39.143
December 1st, 2005 07:40
AWESOME topic! And, frighteningly, my political leanings are actually similar to Dave’s and Jon’s. Yay affirmation!
Posted from: 216.242.134.252
December 1st, 2005 07:44
not ICC? :-(
the new wording makes is a nice improvement… i suppose it wont be *too* bad.
Posted from: 151.198.226.100
December 1st, 2005 08:04
It’s awesome, more than 409589009453590 times better than the Intelligent Design PF topic.
Posted from: 67.190.221.254
December 1st, 2005 08:05
Oh, Jason…it’s brave wide-eyed enthusiasm like that makes me love you.
I also think we should all be wary of a topic that Bryce likes. That makes me very scared.
Posted from: 134.84.39.143
December 1st, 2005 08:06
The wording change is *definitely* for the better.
Posted from: 205.196.178.196
December 1st, 2005 08:25
I like the topic its better than the rights of children v rights of parent thing.
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
December 1st, 2005 08:44
gaahhhhh
i want military intel :(
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 1st, 2005 09:11
“And, frighteningly, my political leanings are actually similar to Dave’s and Jon’s.”
Ayn Rand would be so, so disappointed in you. ;o)
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
December 1st, 2005 09:24
is the resolution implying the america?
Posted from: 134.84.39.143
December 1st, 2005 09:45
“Ayn Rand would be so, so disappointed in you. ;o)”
She’d just say that our opinions aren’t *really* the same because I hold mine for rational (i.e. Objectivist) reasons while you and Dave don’t ;)
Posted from: 66.193.128.98
December 1st, 2005 09:56
I’m actually pretty pumped for this topic. Unjust is a mighty tricky word…
Posted from: 169.241.10.81
December 1st, 2005 10:22
curious wrote
“is the resolution implying the america?”
The term is only used in the united states.If you were to look up the definition on Wikipedia, it states that in europe it is called “Compulsory purchase” and in Australia its “compulsory acquisition” In China its used so often but the don’t ever use “eminent domain.” So i think that itis implying America.
Posted from: 208.147.72.78
December 1st, 2005 10:31
I am so excited. We have NEVER, in over 20 years of LD debate, had a topic on proprty rights. This should be a blast. A little bit of friendly advice–don’t limit your research to the Kelo decision. There’s a great deal of literature on the concept of private property itself that will be hugely useful on this topic. You’ll be reading the classics of Western Political Philosophy, among other things.
Posted from: 128.12.96.36
December 1st, 2005 11:15
In response to Jon (and Dave and Christian), I think it’s important NOT to view this topic as being clearly divided on political grounds. The decision in Kelo, for example, which upheld that the use of eminent domain WAS justified because promoting private entreprise can serve various public interests (if I remember correctly), was decidedly a “liberal” ruling - the majority was, I believe, made up of Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Kennedey. While I think there is a (very understandable) tendency to view having to justify promoting private entreprise as a “conservative” standpoint, it isn’t always that clear-cut. Often times, as in the Kelo case, supporting the use of eminent domain can be a “liberal” position.
Posted from: 24.159.242.235
December 1st, 2005 11:19
Once people read Kelo, I predict a definitional war on the the word “promote.”
But I like the topic.
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
December 1st, 2005 11:20
I concur with Lexy, and would like to expand:
Eminent domain as a concept has a rich history in the law. But just because it’s a concept that is oft discussed in legal circles doesn’t mean that:
(A) Law journals are the best source of research;
(B) Particular judicial decisions really matter all that much in debating the issue, or even:
(C) That we have to debate in the context of “the law.”
The question in the resolution is (arguably at least) normative. The kinds of arguments that lawyers make in legal proceedings are valid in the same way that any other debate argument would be valid; they argue that eminent domain is either right or wrong. In LD, as I understand it, there isn’t any reason to defer to the opinions of judges - in the sense that, their opinions are not necessarily more valid *because* they are judges. The legal history of the concept of eminent domain is (I think) not necessarily relevant, or more relevant, than other kinds of/sources of argument.
Posted from: 205.196.188.155
December 1st, 2005 11:37
this topic is greatttt
Posted from: 206.131.30.1
December 1st, 2005 11:43
Dave,
Wouldn’t the fact that Eminent Domain is a legal term, rooted in legal history, force a good deal of the debate into the legal realm?
I’m not saying the entire debate needs to be on the legal aspect, but the wording of the defination seems to point you in that direction to some degree.
DJ
Posted from: 68.49.180.49
December 1st, 2005 11:47
I will save my more specific thoughts about the topic for when I commit pen to paper on this stuff but, I wanted to second Dave’s observation at the top that I liked this wording b/c it will even out Aff/Neg skews.
Here’s why: Rather than political slants (I entirely and completely agree with Dan that neither side of the political spectrum has an obvious resolutional inkling aff or neg — once you get into the larger literature on urban development, as well as the law stuff, you will see why), this topic is great because its structure should compel negatives to actually engage the Aff. In the present and recent previous resolutions, the Aff has had the burden to prove that a subject (e.g. judicial activism) has a particular quality (e.g. necessary) in relation to something else (protection of rights). In the new resolution, the Aff burden is slightly different — to prove that a subject (eminent domain power for blah blah blah) LACKS a certain quality (i.e. is unjust). Perhaps this will not play out the way I anticipate and hope (because some Negs try to prove independent links (counteradvocacies) to Justice and then merely outweigh Aff criticisms) but, at the very least, it will make developing case positions a little less stale on a strategic level.
My main concern is that rather than engaging the actual substance of this topic — for which there is so much diverse and interesting literature that it is pretty overwhelming — complacent debaters will just sit around and run generic state power good/state power bad. I think that would be a travesty not only b/c (1) it would reflect extreme laziness on the debater’s part (intellectually speaking); but (2) when you move to that level of generality in argumentation and are already dealing with an extraordinarily general evaluative mechanism (just or unjust), it will make for awfully muddled debates that will be a race to the bottom in terms of intellect. So, please, as both a plea and a caution: Don’t just pull out the generic state power stuff here — you will end up doing yourself, and the debates, a terrible disservice.
Posted from: 207.172.220.151
December 1st, 2005 11:48
Yay!!!!!!
Posted from: 67.171.247.178
December 1st, 2005 11:53
THIS topic is so HOT I’m gonna #&(@ it in the ear! mmmmmmmmmm yeah!
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
December 1st, 2005 12:00
Let’s just say I’m not excited to debate Hess on this topic.
Looks like there are lots of legal reviews in my future…..
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 1st, 2005 12:06
I certainly hope that no one took my suggestion of starting with Kelo and reading the associated literature as the sum total of suggested reading that one could do on this topic. I just thought it was a logical starting point.
Economic theory is certainly going to play a role in this: does government even have a place in promoting private enterprise? Or should government stay out of the business of private enterprise, because capitalism works best when left alone? On the other hand, in order to benefit those typically disenfranchised from a capitalist system, is good to shake up property rights a bit to promote enterprise where it has not existed previously?
(again, not a thorough analysis of the topic, just some thoughts to try to help people start thinking about the topic).
Posted from: 209.94.139.52
December 1st, 2005 12:07
I <3 the PF debate topic…and this one sorta… meh…
Posted from: 128.135.98.169
December 1st, 2005 12:21
ew stop talking about law. Felix, Guy, Gilles, Antonio, Antonio, Herbert, Theodor, Max, Louis and Karl are back in style for winter.
Posted from: 216.223.203.62
December 1st, 2005 12:30
i like i like… its nice that we’ll be able to debate about more ‘classic’ LD ideas (justice, property rights, checks and balances) in an LD enviornment conducieve to critical argumentation and theory. I think this topic has the potential to produce quality argumentation and competitive rounds without much of the petty crap about necessity or rounds that are just two mutually exclusive frameworks trying to preclude the other side. I agree with Anjan…we might actually see people answering cases! wowwowowowowow
Posted from: 70.152.214.59
December 1st, 2005 13:09
+1 to jacob’s comment. Even if there are better subjects to discuss than eminent domain, I’m happy about what the topic DOESN’T have–an internal criterion like necessity for protecting rights or consistency with democratic ideals.
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 1st, 2005 13:16
Does the NFL not pick topics from camps that people care about ever?
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 1st, 2005 13:26
“Does the NFL not pick topics from camps that people care about ever?”
I have been staring at this question for three minutes trying to understand what it means. Reword?
Posted from: 67.43.21.12
December 1st, 2005 13:30
ADMIN NOTE: This post was deleted for offensive content. Here is the IP ADRESS of the posting individual: 67.43.21.12
OrgName: Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency
OrgID: MBAEA
Address: Information Technology
Address: 729 Twenty-First Street
City: Bettendorf
StateProv: IA
PostalCode: 52722-5086
Country: US
NetRange: 67.43.16.0 - 67.43.31.255
CIDR: 67.43.16.0/20
NetName: MBAEA-SERVICES
NetHandle: NET-67-43-16-0-1
Parent: NET-67-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS-PUB.AEA9.K12.IA.US
NameServer: NS1-PUB.AEA9.K12.IA.US
NameServer: NS2-PUB.AEA9.K12.IA.US
Comment:
RegDate: 2004-03-09
Updated: 2004-07-02
RAbuseHandle: ZM73-ARIN
RAbuseName: Network Technician
RAbusePhone: +1-563-359-1371
RAbuseEmail: dns@aea9.k12.ia.us
RNOCHandle: ZM73-ARIN
RNOCName: Network Technician
RNOCPhone: +1-563-359-1371
RNOCEmail: dns@aea9.k12.ia.us
RTechHandle: ZM73-ARIN
RTechName: Network Technician
RTechPhone: +1-563-359-1371
RTechEmail: dns@aea9.k12.ia.us
OrgAbuseHandle: ZM73-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Network Technician
OrgAbusePhone: +1-563-359-1371
OrgAbuseEmail: dns@aea9.k12.ia.us
OrgTechHandle: ZM73-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network Technician
OrgTechPhone: +1-563-359-1371
OrgTechEmail: dns@aea9.k12.ia.us
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-11-30 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 1st, 2005 13:34
Boring. This topic is boring. I was hoping for the military intelligence topic - juvenile topic - SOMETHING.
- this is just boring - alas though - so was immigration policy and people still managed to link it to mass death and education.
- Whatever -
Btw - I love what Jason, Anjan, and Jacob had to say and I reaally reallly realllly hope the topic turns out that way.
Posted from: 143.254.72.124
December 1st, 2005 13:34
I’m really happy about this one…I think, as many have pointed out, that this has a really good balance of burdens. Having debated it at NDF (which, I guess, IS a camp that the NFL cares about, Jordan G :P), I’m really looking forward to seeing and participating in amazingly fun rounds - I find myself enjoying both the clear topic area (we all know what eminent domain is, at least), as well as the sheer range of advocacies available on both sides. So…YAY!
~Ankur
Posted from: 68.196.115.198
December 1st, 2005 13:38
“Does the NFL not pick topics from camps that people care about ever?”
Well, considering NDF did this topic I’d say you’re completely wrong. And I pretty much agree with Bryce. Just cuz the camp u went to didn’t do the eminent domain topic doesn’t mean that it’s not a good resolution, nor does it mean that the camp u went to is the only one people care about.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
December 1st, 2005 15:25
omg! this topic is almost as cool as Stewies Ipod Commercial! *flashback to stewie being the ipod dancing guy*(joke for Family Guy Fans)
Posted from: 64.198.64.135
December 1st, 2005 15:49
To clarify further, John, the NFL doesn’t pick the topics. In the September Rostrum, a ballot is printed with the 10 possible topics and schools vote on them. If it comes up as a topic, it’s because it fell in the top 5 of the list of 10 because of school voting.
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
December 1st, 2005 16:04
34. At 12:21 PM on 1 December 2005, Petey wrote:
ew stop talking about law. Felix, Guy, Gilles, Antonio, Antonio, Herbert, Theodor, Max, Louis and Karl are back in style for winter.
and who said D and G isn’t topical?
Posted from: 68.198.236.197
December 1st, 2005 16:19
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
mmmmm neo-marxism + cap good
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 1st, 2005 16:27
Cherian - how could I not love this topic? Property rights, that crazy bundle of sticks, the strangest of all the rights! You can tell what kind of music someone likes based on whether they like property rights or free speech…
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 1st, 2005 16:28
Dan is right, and I was totally kidding around about the topic having a clear-cut “liberal” or “conservative” slant on either side.
It’s refreshing to see a discussion in which the vast majority of the posters are COMPLIMENTING the resolution. I’m excited for it.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 1st, 2005 16:33
Cherian - how could I not love this topic? Property rights, that crazy bundle of sticks, the strangest of all the rights! You can tell what kind of music someone likes based on whether they like property rights or free speech…
Posted from: 199.174.242.132
December 1st, 2005 16:44
I am feeling relieved right now. Very relieved. I am SO glad the resolution doesn’t set specific burdens that don’t harm good value debate (in the general sense). I think this topic is good b/c we can really run cases that specifically talk about eminent domain, or we can do as Petey suggested, and look at the economic role of the state.
Posted from: 65.101.93.104
December 1st, 2005 16:49
one concern, though a good topic over all(comparative ld resolutions!?)
On this topic, the aff has to prove something ISNT just. It seems like the negative will be much more difficult than the aff. I know this is good to an extent, but proving something just seems alot harder than usual- at least highly unconventional.
Better than the last one though, or many of the other topics.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
December 1st, 2005 17:08
this is going to be awesome! i like that it that this topic is going to change the focus of what we have (mostly) been discussing in rounds: democracy. Besides supreme court case, anybody know any good reads for this topic?
Posted from: 140.247.73.54
December 1st, 2005 17:25
Anarchy, the State and Utopia by Nozick
Are Property and Contract Efficient? by Duncan Kennedy and Frank Michelman
Posted from: 63.193.118.145
December 1st, 2005 18:03
no one has brought this up yet, but i think it’s important to address the problems that might come along with the rez being a negative statement. while i originally was happy to see this, because it seems to offset the neg skew by giving the negative a larger burden than the affirmative, i think the way that this sort of topic will play out in round could be problematic.
essentially, it’s asking the affirmative to disprove a positive statement (eminent domain is just) before the negative has the chance to prove it. this is probably good for equalizing burdens and stuff, because it gives the aff a lot of options that are typically defaulted neg (easy ways out, logical fallacies with the statement, disproving pieces of the topic, etc). the problem though is that it seems in some rounds, the AC will become functionally meaningless. for example, if an affirmative sets up a certain framework and criterion to determine what’s (un)just and disproves it under that standard for justice, a negative could very easily prove that it’s just under a different conception.
i wonder if there’s something i’m missing about the topic that would make this less of a problem. it’s only the first day that the topic’s out, so more ideas are bound to form, but this was the first problem i saw with the rez’s wording after two hours of topic analysis.
Posted from: 69.228.203.101
December 1st, 2005 18:41
interesting topic im just curious if the debate can expand beyond the specific parameters the resolution places to discuss larger social or critical ideas
Posted from: 146.115.115.110
December 1st, 2005 18:50
sonya wrote:
- “if an affirmative sets up a certain framework and criterion to determine what’s (un)just and disproves it under that standard for justice, a negative could very easily prove that it’s just under a different conception.”
Wouldn’t that just lead to a normal standards debate? What is wrong with that?
Posted from: 63.193.118.145
December 1st, 2005 18:52
i think it can…i’m hoping that eminent domain becomes a metaphor for the larger question of the extent to which government should be involved in the economic and social affairs of society.
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 1st, 2005 18:52
To respond to DJ –
Cases could also revolve around the social benefits (or harms) of private enterprise. That type of approach, I think, begs for philosophy (classical, modern, postmodern), not just a legal analysis of eminent domain.
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
December 1st, 2005 19:09
If I hear a GOOD Rand case for the aff, I will weep for joy. This topic has a lot of potential for those who want to learn how to PROPERLY run Rand.
If, on the other hand, I hear a BAD Rand neg, I’m just warning ya’ll in advance, your speaks are gonna be tanked. Why? It’s not because of my own “political” (they’re really *philosophical* leanings, Jon, Dave, and Christian. [Christian will know what that means even if Jon and Dave don’t, lol]) beliefs, it’s because I believe in reading comprehension.
So, a word of caution: Rand can do exactly what you want her to do on the aff, and more. Objectivism can *vindicate* you from the standard harms incurred by this resolution. (Wouldn’t it be nice to outweigh and/or solve *morally*, for once, in LD?) It won’t even take much fancy talking. In fact, it’s embarassingly simple.
BUT…. if you MISHANDLE her on the neg, or give an inch of moral ground on the aff while running Rand, you’ll be up the proverbial creek without a rowing utensil.
So, uh, yeah. Come over the the “dark side.” We have chocolate. ;-)
Oh, and sorry for the annoying brackets in the second paragraph.
And, one last, rather cryptic aside. Part of me thinks this resolution can be handled (on a semantic level) in a few different ways. But a larger part of me thinks that Rand undoes most of them, regardless of your personal beliefs and the overwhelming liberalness of the young debate trendsetters who normally interpret topics. You’re all free to call me crazy, stupid, both, niether, or simply an unqualified and silly “Randroid” …but I’ve stated my opinion, for what’s it’s worth, and interested parties can contact me at their will. (In other words - I’m not too interested in being told I’m wrong. If you think Rand sucks, you go write a case that blocks her advocacy. ;) Less talk, more action. Or rather, more talk, but as talk-qua-action. Or whatever.)
And god, I always sound like such a ditz when I’ve had too much coffee. But I’ve said it all now, I swear. Best of luck to everyone debating this topic!
Aracelis
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 1st, 2005 20:37
Okay, you silly Randroid. I was awaiting your appearance on this thread the moment I saw the topic. ;o)
I kid, I kid. Actually, I’m willing to bet Rand/Peikoff become fairly common authors across many different circuits, so even if you weren’t to run Objectivism, it would be a good argument with which to familiarize oneself.
I’d start with Jeff Walker’s The Cult of Ayn Rand. ;o)
(That was for you, Christian.)
Posted from: 69.85.170.32
December 1st, 2005 20:38
is eminent domain pertain to all property or is it unique to land?
Posted from: 70.245.206.86
December 1st, 2005 20:53
can somebody say PLAN TEXT?
Posted from: 63.201.36.51
December 1st, 2005 21:01
plan text
Posted from: 70.245.206.86
December 1st, 2005 21:11
ohhhh…….the power of plan text. i just fiated john kwan.
Posted from: 71.106.100.5
December 1st, 2005 21:24
this is a historic event. its one of the first times that a resolution has come out and vbd hasn’t been barraged with hundreds of I HATE THIS TOPIC comments.
good stuff.
Posted from: 68.117.35.53
December 1st, 2005 21:24
I may be totally dumb on this, but how the hell do you run a plantext.
one, no specific gov body –> no agent
two, the res is already a plan, we just evaluate merits of state action X on basis of justice
three, how would you affirm…a plantext that has net disadvantages
or are you just that big of a dumb-argument whore.
Posted from: 69.230.61.95
December 1st, 2005 21:24
Ha, when I first saw this was Jan/Feb I said ‘wtf’. And then I realized that I voted for this topic as #1 because I really wanted to see it debated. A surprising J/F topic but a great topic nonetheless. I agree with Dave McG, I really liked this topic because I thought it was about time we debated something where the Aff had the advantage in burden to offset their time disadvantage.
Posted from: 68.117.35.53
December 1st, 2005 21:31
I may be totally dumb on this, but how the hell do you run a plantext.
one, no specific gov body –> no agent
two, the res is already a plan, we just evaluate merits of state action X on basis of justice
three, how would you affirm…a plantext that has net disadvantages
or are you just that big of a dumb-argument whore.
Posted from: 69.12.152.50
December 1st, 2005 22:41
call me stupid, but what is a plan text? in my 3+ years of debate i have never encountered the term until only recently (on these boards, in fact)….and would kinda like someone to explain it please. thank you.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 2nd, 2005 07:40
nice spin with the phrase “to promote private enterprise”.. makes it more interesting to debate it rather than just saying eminent domain is just or unjust in general.
Posted from: 141.151.112.3
December 2nd, 2005 12:25
this is one of the first times i have ever seen most people like a topic when it comes out.
personly i didn’t like the topic all that much at ndf mostly becuase it lacks a defined neg burden
Posted from: 68.19.189.33
December 2nd, 2005 12:41
i don’t know how well known this is, but a few years back the state government of Mississippi pulled an eminent domain move to get some property to hand over to Nissan so they could build a manufacturing plant. it went to the courts for a while. eventually sided with the state.
plant’s been successful. jobs created. yayayayah.
just thought i’d mention it…
Posted from: 12.215.187.156
December 2nd, 2005 15:01
Vince,
There are A LOT of examples of the resolution. During the 70’s and 80’s there were a bunch of court cases were cities had condemned blocks of downtown areas and then sold them to construction firms — urban renewal.
A diligent research will not have any trouble finding good case law and examples. Happy hunting!
JWF
Posted from: 199.174.242.185
December 3rd, 2005 19:33
I think I really see your point Jon as discussion on this forum has progressed. There are going to be a lot of examples for either side, and I think those examples are good to know and use, but I think an over specific case could really create a policy-esque situation without real philosophical underpinnings.
So my question for those of you at NDF who debated the topic and those who are already formulating ideas is twofold:
1. Is a categorical case the best way to go, as in a general justification to why eminent domain is, irregardless of consequence, just or unjust?
2. Would it be well recieved if the negative argued that justice is a criterion that ought not to be applied to the strategic realm of economics? This seems a little cruel, but after book group at camp and 200 pages of Milton Friedman, I really think civic economics would be strategically bankrupt if any model that strongly departed from the realm of patterns and mathematics were to be put into use. Simply, economic models which provide the basis of state policy dont work if you consider the real life implications of the decision.
Posted from: 63.246.171.93
December 4th, 2005 09:13
OK two major important words in the resolution:
promote:
to encourage the popularity, sale, development or existence of something
This defenition is pretty sweet if you are neg. I think there could be quite a bit of stuff in the weird realm example: The resolution is saying promote; the resolution is not asking to prove that the use of eminent domain to create, sell, or transfer private property is unjust, it is simply asking for proof that increasing the popularity of private enterprise is unjust. In the long run, affirming this resolution could lead to the downfall of private enterprise as a whole, when you decide that increasing it’s popularity is un-just.
within eminent domain; private property
Who says that property has to mean real estate? Affirmative could create some crazy scenario where money is property, and the government tries to take a citizens money (property too, you know) and pay less than it’s worth… This would arguably serve the public good (increase our economy) but come on…
E-mail me what you think about my ideas.
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 4th, 2005 10:21
Um, panda, how many people went to NDF? Like, 20? I donno, it’s just that I’ve never heard of a successful person ever going to NDF, except for Spirtos. But didn’t Ari go there? I donno that either, I just know that this topic was not done at a camp that is competitive with VBI or NSD and that the three topics that were done at those camps weren’t used.
Posted from: 68.88.136.143
December 4th, 2005 15:56
This topic seems really lame on the neg. Outside of economic development arguments, I am having a hard time of even thinking of potential postions. The Aff is incredible though, and it is about time that the Aff had an advantage.
Posted from: 69.172.88.185
December 4th, 2005 16:43
Love the new topic
Posted from: 204.202.32.123
December 5th, 2005 16:38
I can’t understand the whining about the neg position on this topic (posts 5, 53, 80). I agree entirely with the posts stating that this topic is much richer than the Kelo decision (posts 9, 22 and 32), but let’s start there. The majority decision on Kelo is a great starting point for neg, just as the dissenting opinions are a starting point for the aff positions. As suggested, do your work before you complain. At least look at Kelo and the pre- and post-Kelo literature.
Further to this point, Sonya makes an interesting observation (at post 56) concerning the aff burden. Looked at another way, the res requires the aff to prove a negative-that eminent domain is not just. Proving the existence of a negative is a pretty substantial burden (prove that Oswald acted alone). Aff has a tough time if neg can show that it is ever possible for the use of eminent domain to promote private enterprise to be just (i.e., “conforming to reason or a standard of correctness; b conforming with what is deemed fair or good”).
Good luck!
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
December 5th, 2005 18:49
79. At 10:21 AM on 4 December 2005, Jordan G wrote:
[…]it’s just that I’ve never heard of a successful person ever going to NDF, except for Spirtos.[..]
brilliant.
Posted from: 128.135.192.81
December 5th, 2005 18:57
Jordan G: Joe McPeak also went to NDF
Posted from: 68.92.207.225
December 5th, 2005 19:23
hey guys, so my friend and i have been thinking about what philosphy to use on aff and neg. For aff, its pretty easy cuz u can use like
nozick and locke’s social contract. But neg is kinda hard. The only thing we can come up with is utility on neg, if any1 has some philospher to use or to refer to, please suggest it or email me
Posted from: 169.241.10.82
December 6th, 2005 08:04
i love ashley case an im ultra conservative and i love sean hannityand i cuss cuz im cool, oh and guess what??? this weekend i drank an ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE!!! I SO DRANK THAT ONE SIP!!!
oh my gosh.
and….
I STAYED UP PAST MY BEDTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Posted from: 66.141.23.160
December 6th, 2005 17:19
comments 93-97 were pretty unneccesary, anyways people read comment 92 and please send some feedback or get suggestions, cuz so many people are going to get messed up on the neg side on the jan/feb topic
Posted from: 169.241.10.81
December 9th, 2005 11:12
I’m trying to find philosophy that leans more toward the concept of community improvement. (Communitarianism)
Posted from: 67.174.252.225
December 9th, 2005 21:29
Excellent new topic! be sure to read kelo!
Posted from: 24.94.224.36
December 10th, 2005 12:37
If I interpreted the resolution correctly, the debate should simply be over what is more valuable: the individual or society….
The link to it being unjust/just could be tied into which is more valuable.
Posted from: 69.227.206.168
December 10th, 2005 18:14
I wouldn’t necessarily say which is more valuable. I think the debate could radically change depending on what kind of interpretation of “justice” the debaters finally agree on.
Posted from: 66.139.218.185
December 10th, 2005 21:54
Umm ok, Jay, I have done my research and I still find the neg position rather barren. The Kelo decision will be important, but by the end, it will be like getting stabbed in the stomach everytime I hear some talk about it. I think people will try and make that the whole debate but it is way way way more than that.
Posted from: 130.132.143.49
December 11th, 2005 22:18
Yes, no one is succesful from NDF. I wonder why 4/5 people who auto qualled at TOC went to NDF this preceeding summer.
I think people need to get their facts straight before they knock on camps. NDF is definitely a “camp that matters.”
Posted from: 169.229.118.148
December 12th, 2005 00:25
People Qualling to TOC from NDF last year:
Ernie Rose
Jess Duby
Adwait Parker
Fabien Thayamballi
Matt Shields
Casey Trombley-Shapiro
Anjali Motgi
Alex Smith
Michael Mangus
Loren Eastlund
Ari Parker
Prashant Rai
Stephen Hess
Tanya Choudhury
Sara Robinson
Sam Abba
Alex Hsu
Bobiejo Ferguson
Christian Tarsney
Jennifer Zavaleta
People qualling to TOC from NDF this year:
Anjali Motgi
Matt Shields
Jacob Levi
Ari Parker
Sonia Sujanani
and I am positive more will qual…
NDF is a great camp. Don’t knock it until you’ve been.
Posted from: 207.172.220.151
December 12th, 2005 00:45
Craig Gilbert also qualled this year from ndf.
Posted from: 205.196.188.155
December 12th, 2005 05:46
“Jordan G: Joe McPeak also went to NDF”
That’s a great post.
Posted from: 140.247.73.54
December 13th, 2005 07:05
To Ben Sisley and anyone else considering a communitarian position:
Don’t just card Sandel or Etzioni. Start with Aristotle’s Politics, as the teleological framework that communitarianism is based on is Aristotelian. Read Alistair MacIntyre’s view of the encumbered self, and learn how this is a significant departure from the Kantian tradition of the rational self. Then consider the communitarians’ argument that the good is inseparable from the right, and how this brings about obligations of soldarity and membership. Understand the concept - don’t just card random people.
Besides, what did they say about eminent domain?
Posted from: 140.247.73.54
December 13th, 2005 07:24
To Ben Sisley and anyone else considering a communitarian position:
Don’t just card Sandel or Etzioni. Start with Aristotle’s Politics, as the teleological framework that communitarianism is based on is Aristotelian. Read Alistair MacIntyre’s view of the encumbered self, and learn how this is a significant departure from the Kantian tradition of the rational self. Then consider the communitarians’ argument that the good is inseparable from the right, and how this brings about obligations of soldarity and membership. Understand the concept - don’t just card random people.
Besides, what did they say about eminent domain?
Posted from: 169.241.10.82
December 13th, 2005 10:07
Thank you , John Sheffield, In my philosphy class, (yes i now have a philosophy class), at school I’ve learned alot about Aristotle’s view on Communitarianism. I dont plan on carding random people and will make sure to do enough research to FULLY understand it.
Posted from: 204.234.218.54
December 13th, 2005 11:58
Hi
Posted from: 64.108.192.109
December 17th, 2005 18:03
Right on Petey
Posted from: 24.117.130.82
December 21st, 2005 13:22
I’ve been out of the High School Debate circuit for a while, but after reading this topic, I can’t help but want to, cliche-edly, add my two cents. While Kelo v. New London is the obvious recent court case that everyone’s been promoting, I think the roots to the justification of Eminent Domain used in that case are much more essential to the debate. Kelo offered a conclusion about E.D. that begins long, long before Stevens sat down to defend New London. The issue of “public use” vs. “public purpose” needs to be established and understood if debaters are going to attack this issue from a U.S. government and U.S. conception of private property perspective (I’d like to note that while eminent domain is the term we use, the absence of it in the constitution should make people weary about depending solely on constitutional writings (federalist papers, USC decisions, law review articles, etc.)). Students should review Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff and Berman v. Parker among other USC decisions. There, the justices concluded that “public use” is equivalent to a public purpose and granted wide latitude to the states in determining what a public purpose is the use of that standard certainly doesn’t make some of the justices happy. In Midkiff, takings of private property for the purpose (more or less) of eliminating a monopoly was a public purpose. In Berman, the removal of blight and the creation of new private housing justified the taking of private homes. Both have obvious economic implications that set the stage for Kelo. I would further suggest that O’Connor’s dissent in Gonzales v. Raich be reviewed since she does a nice job of showing that virtually every human activity can be considered economic and if the CSA can effectively grant the Fed Govt. a police power the constitution reserves for states, then what’s to stop the govt from finding other methods of regulating and usurping that under the guise of economics. She does this in her Morrison and Lopez opinions as well. In the Lucas decision, the Court recognized that land can be “taken” by rendering it useless via restrictions and regulations imposed on territory. Eminent Domain is not as simple as “we need to build x and your land is the perfect spot for it so here’s $20, now move.” There’s a lot to be said for regulating land to the point that it’s worthless. In some cases, those regulations are for economic reasons (the prevention of development on wetland to prevent flooding which is costly and thus economic).
Posted from: 67.48.83.100
December 25th, 2005 01:39
I think one of the most challenging points of this resolution is gaining a handle on what exactly it is we are debating. I noticed a trend amongst some to boil this down into a debate over the merit of private enterprise, or the value of community. I feel however that it is important that the resolution is so specific in some of its language… we are not debating the resolution “The use of the state’s power to seize property is unjust” or “The use of the states power of eminent domain is unjust.” In particular, I feel it is important to the debate that it is specified that the state would be seizing property via the process of eminent domain.
As I have always encountered it in technical literature, “eminent domain” refers to a specific type of property seizure by the state. Generally, it necessitates that there is a fair market compensation to the property owner, and that the seizure is done with some sort of justification for the public good. To go through the process of seizing something via eminent domain, there is a specific process that is distinct from seizures based on other grounds. For example, it is possible for the state to seize private property for safety reasons, zoning violations, regulatory issues, etc.
When looking into the specific legal, political, and economic implications of each of these different types of seizures, one can sometimes find dramatically different results. This is because the processes of seizing property are carried out in different ways. For example, in eminent domain seizures, there are often long negotiations in which the government and the private property owners negotiate the compensation to be paid; only after these negotiations are completed does control of the property pass to the government. In regulatory seizures, however, the government often “grabs first and negotiates later”, and forces property owners to fight for compensation in court after they have already lost their property. This is obviously more taxing on the property owners, and has more severe implications.
In addition to these different outcomes that can occur from seizing property in different ways, the legal justifications for the diferent kind of property seizures are certainly very distinct from one another.
Furthermore, I should note that in many cases it is not clear HOW the government seized property. There are a number of cases and examples in which the government seized property for what it claimed were regulatory reasons, and so denied the property owners compensation. Then the property owners sued, claiming that in reality the seizure was one of eminent domain. Sometimes the courts have re-classified seizures after they’ve occured, thus retroactively entiling the property owners to compensation.
Many people, when discussing this topic, seem to interpret “eminent domain” to generally just mean the government seizing property in some broad manner.
It strikes me that to interpret “eminent domain” in such a way is to border on abusive. It is incredibly easy to argue that it is unjust for the government to take property from rightful owners at will, and it is much harder to explain in a reasonable and persuasive way why the government should be able to disregard property rights at will.
In short, I would like to know what others think about this. Should it be at all meaningful that the resolution specified “Eminent domain” and not merely “Property seizures”? How do you see this playing out in rounds?
Posted from: 67.50.184.177
January 3rd, 2006 14:49
what I need to understand is how can the negative uphold its case… of stating that eminent domain is just?
Posted from: 67.101.217.118
January 3rd, 2006 20:21
The neg. seems to be doing just fine on this topic. In fact, negatives won 55% of the time at CPS in Dec. I’m wondering if that will shift as the topic ages.
Posted from: 68.197.162.103
January 5th, 2006 19:50
yo, this topic is the shiznit but you need to crack your law journals… while Kelo v. New Londen is a must definetly most important cases for this are “Lingle v. Chevron” and “Agins v. City of Tiburon”… i love the “subtsantially advances” formula as a Taking Clause test
Posted from: 68.194.242.222
January 8th, 2006 13:00
Hopefully people won’t get wrapped up in the legality of the matters and ignore the justice part. It should put an interesting perspective on the discussion; rather than constitutionality, what is actually just.