BREAKING NEWS: Juvenile Justice
posted by Jon Cruz on February 1st, 2006
RIPON, WI – Tristan Vick reported it to us first. The National Forensic League has announced that, for the months of March and April, Lincoln-Douglas debaters will discuss the resolution “Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 68.252.244.195
February 1st, 2006 07:10
Oh my god…..awful!
Posted from: 66.245.141.224
February 1st, 2006 07:12
FRONTAL LOBES!!!
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
February 1st, 2006 07:34
God, this joke is so old that I’m not even sure where it’s from (possibly the tv series Home and Away):
I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Posted from: 66.209.65.163
February 1st, 2006 07:36
At least they didnt waste the good topic here i.e. ICC. Only one more chance for the NFL to screw up and that would be at nats…please god let them use something bad, and save the ICC till next year
Posted from: 199.189.11.1
February 1st, 2006 07:58
since there arent toc tournaments on this, and it’s mostly in-state debates, what were some of the positions at vbi on both aff/neg?
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
February 1st, 2006 09:15
yes!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 66.193.126.2
February 1st, 2006 09:31
No. Absolutely Not.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
February 1st, 2006 09:43
horrible
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 1st, 2006 09:59
This resolution totally rules. A similar topic was debaated back in 1999 (maybe 2000), and I’ve never had more fun researching. There is a lot of great evidence that is both policy-making as well as philosophically oriented. The lines and burdens are pretty clear, too.
Posted from: 160.39.130.52
February 1st, 2006 10:20
It was the Jan-Feb 2000 Resolution, though it had slightly different wording, saying “Violent juvenile offenders ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.”
I don’t know if AFFs have to defend putting convicted juvenile offenders directly into adult prison or if they can allow for separate juvenile facilities until they reach adulthood and then serve the rest of their sentence in an adult prison. NEGs often claimed that negating still allowed for exceptionally bad eggs to face adult penalties.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 1st, 2006 10:29
The big aff arg, unfortunately, became frontal lobe. I know the last time this resolution was done, we argued that we should abolish the JJS.
Posted from: 168.190.200.38
February 1st, 2006 10:34
What is the new PFD topic?
Posted from: 207.180.207.254
February 1st, 2006 10:58
i approve. too bad the only tournament I can use it in is the ohio state tournament :/
Posted from: 66.139.199.160
February 1st, 2006 11:31
man, this topic blows
Posted from: 68.175.98.232
February 1st, 2006 11:34
I really enjoyed this topic when I debated it.
Posted from: 68.38.220.125
February 1st, 2006 11:56
sweet
Posted from: 68.192.165.197
February 1st, 2006 12:31
I’m having mixed feelings about this one. It could either end up as a really good debate where people actually discuss the topic through philisophical ways, or everyone would just be throwing around scientific evidence, making the debate pointless. Luckily, the only big thing this topic will be debated in is States.
Posted from: 24.195.0.108
February 1st, 2006 12:33
i think this is a pretty bad topic
Posted from: 24.159.242.235
February 1st, 2006 12:33
The first ld debate I ever saw was on this topic.
Posted from: 204.8.196.2
February 1st, 2006 12:43
I think that debating this topic over and over again makes it REALLY monotonous and a terrible topic; but I remember it being tremendously interesting and engaging (for the first few rounds of “frontal lobes” and “I’m a whiny negative”) at camp last summer. I think that while there isn’t that much wiggle space for lots of different kinds of arguments, I still think this topic is good, given that it will mostly be used for state tournaments. On the bright side, since most of these tournaments are notoriously not of the highest quality, it means judges are always going to understand what you’re talking about, because the issue is simple enough that my brother can understand it, but can be debated on an academic level (as you’ll find if you browse the thousands of articles on Lexis or JSTOR).
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 1st, 2006 13:20
Why do people dislike it? What doesn’t exist that you wish would be in a topic?
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 1st, 2006 13:45
I guess I would also say that the topic getting stale is completely in the debater, not the resolution. This resolution has so much depth:
Purpose of punishment
Purpose of incarcaration
Purpose of creating juvenile/adult or juvenile/child distinction
What is violent
Why is violence worse than “white collar” crimes
Good theory, too. Can the aff only get its benefits from the “violent crime” part of the resolution? Do they have to presume the rest of the JJS remains separate?
What is the nature of being “as adult.”
Can the negative say should be tried as an adult but punished differently? How about vice versa?
There are many many different routes you can take. Because *you* got bored with the resolution doesn’t mean it tapped out your creative ability in 3 rounds. I mean it may have. But that would be sad.
Posted from: 67.164.251.185
February 1st, 2006 13:48
Hmmm…
Hmmm…
I’m still undecided. Guess a little research is in order before I decided whether or not I like the topic.
Posted from: 67.164.251.185
February 1st, 2006 13:52
“decide” not “decided” geez I am bad at typing
Posted from: 151.198.15.92
February 1st, 2006 14:50
I recall that this topic (in Jan-Feb ‘00)–was very good–it certainly has stuck in my mind as having been a very positive one to judge. It was almost as good as “Capital punishment is justified”.
BC
Posted from: 68.88.12.69
February 1st, 2006 14:51
What is frontal lobe?
Posted from: 71.250.112.113
February 1st, 2006 15:30
All that evidence from VBI just for states…
And not that good of a topic either…
Posted from: 64.12.116.197
February 1st, 2006 15:30
I really like the ED topic because I think both sides have a large variety of options, but I feel like this topic is taking a step backwards and once again giving the negative many more options. Anythoughts?
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
February 1st, 2006 16:56
Bietz,
I don’t think I (and others???) object so much to the idea of the resolution as limiting topic ground as the fact that individuals who didn’t get to debate this at VBI will only think of the same two or three same case positions, as opposed to resolutions like September-October. Maybe it’s a silly objection, or maybe it’s just the fact that camp cases are never the best, but I definitely agree with you that this is going to make for really good rounds.
Posted from: 160.39.156.13
February 1st, 2006 17:19
The 2000 TOC final round between Seamus Donovan and James Scot on the similar topic was actually recorded. The sight that once had it, ihigh.com has since expired (or at least the links have). Perhaps some TOC sources or affiliates may still have the recording, or perhaps VBI could just ask Scot and Donovan to write overviews or do a video demo.
Posted from: 69.118.137.245
February 1st, 2006 17:58
oh my god, a topic where we actually have to choose the value; what a dinosaur.
Posted from: 71.250.112.113
February 1st, 2006 18:31
“oh my god, a topic where we actually have to choose the value; what a dinosaur.”
Not really. I predict most values will be either justice or societal welfare.
Posted from: 71.70.233.13
February 1st, 2006 18:36
I agree with Naveen, the cases did get boring after a short while. It was always juveniles aren’t fully cognitively developed to killing is killing and everyone know it. There, was of course the occasional irony position or kritik, but i only saw one or two.
Posted from: 24.16.112.123
February 1st, 2006 18:38
“the occasional irony position”
hehehehehehehehehe
Posted from: 71.70.233.13
February 1st, 2006 18:39
You know, that CD might come in handy now, if nothing else, it could help right block for some arguments you might see.
*I’m wondering, is the VBI topic brief going to use cards from the camp this summer or is it all fresh?*
Posted from: 71.70.233.13
February 1st, 2006 18:41
Quote: ““the occasional irony position”
hehehehehehehehehe ”
Yup, your juveniles are pussies argument. So sad, so sad…”"
Posted from: 71.70.233.13
February 1st, 2006 18:42
*write*
Posted from: 24.13.82.229
February 1st, 2006 19:04
yay, the word “should” is in the resolution. Time to update the “no fiat in LD” blocks. Be prepared for plan texts in front of tab judges…
Posted from: 24.16.112.123
February 1st, 2006 19:04
who are you dawg (mo)
Posted from: 67.83.100.72
February 1st, 2006 19:06
eh im excited cause im lazy and already have cases done from camp but seriously..i dont want to spend all the debate asking what their case study is and talking about frontal lobes. the debates at camp were way to emprics based. Hopefully people will stray from that however most ppl dont have many places to debate on it..i know in jersey i think there is only 2 tournaments on it
Posted from: 24.90.9.11
February 1st, 2006 19:23
I think my favorite line out of the mostapha/justin irony had to be “there are many great father figure types in adult prisons that can teacher tenderness and intimacy”
and the Craig Gilbert “Michael Jackson is a juvenile case” was hilarious as well
Posted from: 71.70.233.13
February 1st, 2006 19:31
That was mine too. :)
I never heard Craig’s case. Oh well. So how exactly did Micheal Jackson solve?
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
February 1st, 2006 20:39
I still don’t understand how that case could POSSIBLY affirm; even though I wrote all those theory violations you could run against it, Peter.
Posted from: 69.86.67.51
February 1st, 2006 21:41
hott!!! squishy brains!!! :)
this topic was fun to debate @ camp… naveen, you have to admit we did have a fun round on this topic + if we never debated the topic i probably would have never had met you!!!
lol i love peter and craig :)
Posted from: 24.47.222.112
February 1st, 2006 21:52
“Bietz
February 1st, 2006 13:20
21
Why do people dislike it? ”
Because it’s a new topic, and this happens every time a topic for these months are posted.
Posted from: 209.210.207.205
February 1st, 2006 22:24
BAH!! not cooL!! my head hurts now…
Posted from: 71.141.34.128
February 1st, 2006 22:27
gah i wish this topic wasn’t wasted on march/arpil
ohh dear
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
February 2nd, 2006 04:18
I’ll tell you what the problems with the topic are (and I wish there was a sarcasm tag in HTML):
1. It’s not the ICC topic
2. It has many areas of conflict, which means more research
3. If the TV show Monk told me anything, it’s that “change is bad” – it’s an old saying, since I’ve been saying it for a long time.
:)
I actually think it’s rather interesting… I wish someone would run A Clockwork Orange narrative… Not neccesarily on this topic, I’d just like to see that as a narrative in general ;)
Posted from: 164.116.253.7
February 2nd, 2006 07:25
Any argument related to a clockwork orange would be good. Especially if you ran the narrative in a british accent.
I talked to some lawyers over the summer and they seemed to like this topic and of course they have multiple arguments going on both sides, but they seem to favor the negative side.
Posted from: 204.111.85.206
February 2nd, 2006 15:11
This is the best effin topic I’ve ever been able to debate yeahyeaa!
Posted from: 67.64.112.53
February 2nd, 2006 15:19
This topic seems so bland. “No wiggle room” I think was the term used earlier. International topics should be used more, they seem to provide the most ways to debate something new or interesting, instead of some recycled resolution.
I will still be going to State on it though :(
Posted from: 67.42.93.10
February 2nd, 2006 22:00
Here is why I have a problem with this topic:
1. It’s a policy resolution. Yes there are value implications, but the word should leaking into LD is not a good thing. It just invites even more of what I’ve been seeing lately: bad policy argumentation.
2. The wording almost forces the affirmative to run a plan or psuedo plan. You certainly can’t affirm for all juvenile violent crimes, you have to choose a certain age and certain crimes. In other words, you are basically running a plan.
I personally see this as pretty neg biased, at least in terms of what the actual facts say. I suppose there is some emotioanal pull for the aff, but there isn’t much hard data.
Posted from: 24.161.65.19
February 3rd, 2006 09:11
everyone stop complaining ….every time a topic comes out you whiners complain about it then towards the end of the time the topic spans you are all like “ohh i like this topic now”
so shutup
Posted from: 163.153.27.11
February 7th, 2006 09:50
This topic doesn’t seem to be that bad, the aff has an easier time with the frontal lobe argument which i really like
Posted from: 69.117.69.255
February 8th, 2006 20:26
topher,
i was at camp when we debated this and it’s definatly not neg-biased at all, it was pretty 50-50 in my opinion(i think naveen and others can back me up on that one)
Posted from: 67.170.236.15
February 13th, 2006 15:44
Yayy, the perfect topic for a policy crossover who will be going for their first LD tournament soon. Fiat=good