BREAKING NEWS: NFL Announces New LD, PF Resolutions
posted by Bietz on August 15th, 2007
RIPON, Wis. - The National Forensic League has announced the first resolution that will be debated for the 2007-2008 season for Lincoln-Douglas debate. The September/October resolution is:
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.
The September resolution for Public Forum debate is:
Resolved: That the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.
Popularity: 12%
no more tag found, sorry
128 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: NFL Announces New LD, PF Resolutions”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- BREAKING NEWS: NFL Announces New LD, PF Resolutions
- Field Report: Grapevine Classic
- Any Plans for Labor Day Weekend?
- Sept/Oct Resolution: What will it be?
- Crystallize: Oh Yeah? Yeah!
- Signing Up for Seminars
- Vassar Round Robin Field Released
- Looking Back, Looking Forward: How Is LD Doing?
- The People Speak: UN, NFL Continue Debate Program Partnership
- Your Chance to Take Home the Kaiser: Monticello Opens Registration
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
August 15th, 2007 05:25
BOOYAH!
Posted from: 68.117.54.66
August 15th, 2007 05:36
I like it
Posted from: 71.183.39.109
August 15th, 2007 05:45
w00t
Posted from: 74.92.108.250
August 15th, 2007 05:47
>:|
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
August 15th, 2007 05:52
WOOHOO!
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 06:13
YES!
Posted from: 24.46.207.84
August 15th, 2007 06:14
YYEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSs
Posted from: 169.232.243.36
August 15th, 2007 06:41
i’ll affirm.
Posted from: 70.240.244.9
August 15th, 2007 06:44
I wanted environment. No Deep Eco. =[
Posted from: 169.232.71.94
August 15th, 2007 06:52
I feel your pain, I wanted precautionary principle :(
Oh well death penalty is just as good!
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 15th, 2007 07:01
It just ain’t fair.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 15th, 2007 07:10
:P
Posted from: 169.232.243.216
August 15th, 2007 07:19
diaappointed…boring topic
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
August 15th, 2007 07:20
mmm, death penalty
Posted from: 169.232.243.120
August 15th, 2007 07:36
I sorta like it
Posted from: 68.229.2.107
August 15th, 2007 07:40
fuck this shit
Posted from: 169.232.69.45
August 15th, 2007 08:12
OH YES THANK THE LORD YES
Posted from: 169.232.71.103
August 15th, 2007 08:16
i wanted to talk about trade agreements, because I like money.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 15th, 2007 08:25
Ugh
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 15th, 2007 08:26
GOD HAS FORSAKEN US. PREPARE THE SACRIFICIAL ALTARS, BLOOD MUST BE SPILLED TO APPEASE TLALOC THE RAIN GOD.
Posted from: 169.232.243.218
August 15th, 2007 08:27
This is a great first topic for novices. (So was the precautionary principle topic.) I’m glad we can introduce new people to LD with this topic. And I think it’s a really interesting topic to boot. So I’m happy.
Posted from: 24.186.38.46
August 15th, 2007 08:40
agreed.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 15th, 2007 08:47
I kinda like the PFD topic as well.
Fairness doctorine…. NEVER would i have guessed that had something to do with the FCC.
Free speach Vs. Free Knowlage.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 15th, 2007 08:57
If Jcruz likes the topic I’m down.
Posted from: 24.173.76.6
August 15th, 2007 09:19
I agree this is great for novices, but I think that there might be some pretty substantial judge bias, especially with less experienced judges.
Although I think that one of the (many) international relations topics that could’ve been chosen would’ve been excellent.
At least UNT-ers aren’t going to have any advance prep.
If I only I could figure out what my own opinion on this subject is…
Posted from: 98.199.6.12
August 15th, 2007 09:30
that’s cool.
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
August 15th, 2007 09:50
So uh, does the NFL like to pick topics that are particularly susceptible to judge bias?
Posted from: 98.197.141.241
August 15th, 2007 09:51
im pissed
Posted from: 72.70.119.128
August 15th, 2007 10:21
Interesting topic . . . I see a lot of opportunities for really lazy negs, though.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 15th, 2007 10:49
“So uh, does the NFL like to pick topics that are particularly susceptible to judge bias?”
I think that the NFL likes to pick topics that are easy to grasp. That and they have 10 topics to pick from with very little time to think about all of the possible argumentation that can result from it.
Posted from: 75.3.246.119
August 15th, 2007 11:25
this topic is sick nasty
Posted from: 69.226.225.87
August 15th, 2007 11:30
HAHAHAHA SO OWNED
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 15th, 2007 12:11
lazy negs? explanation is necessary.
it frustrates me that we never get to debate complex and interesting topics without many preconceived notions (such as some of the IR ones or the local curriculum onee or the race based admissions one). why is simplicity and redundancy favored over innovation and unique areas of research for topic selection?
Posted from: 131.216.2.83
August 15th, 2007 12:13
I
Posted from: 131.216.2.83
August 15th, 2007 12:14
I miss trade agreements
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 15th, 2007 12:35
I miss NSD
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
August 15th, 2007 12:36
tight
Posted from: 70.128.102.27
August 15th, 2007 12:46
bitchin’.
Posted from: 146.115.114.102
August 15th, 2007 12:49
i agree with rebar that topics have been really boring lately. however, i really don’t think that affirmative action (or anything race based) is the sort of topic that avoids preconceived notions.
DEBT CANCELLATION…PLEASE
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 13:29
This is very simple topic, which means its easy to teach stock args to novices, but us more experienced debaters have the freedom to make more interesting/obscure arguments.
personally, I want to make passionate love to this topic.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
August 15th, 2007 13:29
Okay… is anybody else having way too much trouble doing research on the DP topic? It seemed like it would be easy, but now that I look up stuff, it all seems to be US specific. Damn it.
Posted from: 70.128.102.27
August 15th, 2007 13:34
it’s not like you can’t draw general conclusions from the specific applications in the us.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 13:35
Um, well I’ve found some decent shit.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 13:36
Running US specific args assumes that the US is just tho.
Posted from: 70.128.102.27
August 15th, 2007 13:52
no, it doesn’t. it assumes that historical applications of the death penalty might illustrate something about it generally. how that interacts with a just society is what cases would highlight.
Posted from: 88.109.191.140
August 15th, 2007 13:54
The bulk of the US based empirical stuff on race and class discrimination in the implementation of the DP should be useless. The term “just society” limits the aff. to arguing that the DP ought not be used for reasons other than unfair implementation. Its purpose is to encourage debaters to examine the desirability of the DP itself, rather than problems with its implementation in any particular setting. The hope is that aff. debaters will argue against the DP itself, rather than arguing that because the US is racist/classist, the DP is undesirable in the US. There are plenty of great arguments against the DP that have nothing to do with biased implementation. It shouldn’t take much digging to find them.
Posted from: 208.109.168.157
August 15th, 2007 13:54
“personally, I want to make passionate love to this topic.”
you can make passionate love to a topic? By topic mr. feel d**k do you mean the vaseline and rubber gloves sitting next to your HP?
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 14:22
Go fuck your sister, honkey.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 15th, 2007 14:25
oh yeah, i’m totally immersing myself in the freedom of esoteric and complex argumentation this topic allows.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 14:26
I’m really beginning to wonder how they let you on the team in the first place.
*scratches head*
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 14:26
That comment was directed to north bend ag, not you, rebar.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 14:27
You can’t come up with a non-stock reason to abolish the dp?
seriously?
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 15th, 2007 14:31
As for you North Bend: Aren’t you late for a NASCAR event? Or a Klan meeting?
Posted from: 171.64.130.245
August 15th, 2007 15:21
Lexy’s post brings me back to the basic question I have about this topic’s wording: what does “a just society” mean? Does it mean a “society” that has historically been just, or one that will be just indefinitely into the future? If it’s the latter, does that imply that the use or non-use of the death penalty has no bearing on the just-ness of the state (since that indefinite just-ness is already assumed)? If it’s the former, then that would seem to undercut the argument Lexy is making (that we should assume just implementation of the death penalty into the future). Beyond that, what does it mean for a “society” to be just? Does it mean every person in the society is just in their actions? That the government of the society is just? Is “just” an absolute and binary categorization, or can a “just” society do some unjust things and have some people who act unjustly? The problematic nature of this term is what makes me a bit queasy about judging rounds on it.
Other than that, I think the topic area itself is really good, and if you can’t find creative ways to affirm or negate you really aren’t thinking hard enough. I’m also not sure why a topic should be expected to provide “freedom of esoteric … argumentation,” insofar as esoteric is taken in its usual sense to mean “understood by only a small number of people with specialized knowledge” - don’t we want topics that are accessible to a wide range of debaters and judges?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 15th, 2007 16:19
now that i’ve been burned by sheehan, i think i’ll retreat to my hidey hole deep in the ozarks and do some research.
Posted from: 169.232.243.36
August 15th, 2007 17:10
be meeting you there soon my boy…have the shanty stocked with hope and wireless internet.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 15th, 2007 17:28
can we get a no homo wesley?
Posted from: 71.139.25.186
August 15th, 2007 17:42
I’m totally running the Green post in my T violations.
This Public Forum topic is awful.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 15th, 2007 17:52
miiiirror neurons
Posted from: 128.97.179.106
August 15th, 2007 18:42
uh, no. not worried about sounding gay. am worried about rebar getting cases ready for ghill. something that doesn’t involve organ harvests, torture good or zombies, i’m hoping. but then, we never know what that demented mt vernon rn will think of next…
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
August 15th, 2007 18:54
I like zombies =]
Posted from: 63.246.171.93
August 15th, 2007 19:00
To people talking about the lack of material/its US specificity.
The reason why most of the death penalty lit is US specific is because the US is one of the only “developed” countries that still uses it (I think Singapore is one of the few others), and it is certainly the most vigorous user of the death penalty (as in, Texas executes more people than the rest of the world or something)
Posted from: 71.135.162.123
August 15th, 2007 19:24
haha yes!
rebar got pwned
my life is now complete
btw
good topic
Posted from: 128.97.179.106
August 15th, 2007 19:32
umm, rebar didn’t get ‘pwned’, i coach him, and those were not his ideas, just ideas i’ve heard. zombies is starting to grow on me though, just watched the movie 28 days later…holy shit.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 15th, 2007 19:34
i would straight up concede to a zombies case. that sounds awesome.
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 15th, 2007 21:06
“To people talking about the lack of material/its US specificity.
The reason why most of the death penalty lit is US specific is because the US is one of the only “developed” countries that still uses it (I think Singapore is one of the few others), and it is certainly the most vigorous user of the death penalty (as in, Texas executes more people than the rest of the world or something)”
Actually, China pretty much pwns texas…Texas has executed 370 people in the past 30 years, while China had over 1000 documented in 2006 (likely much higher).
Posted from: 69.12.136.2
August 15th, 2007 22:50
how would zombies & mirror neurons interact?
Posted from: 76.185.169.243
August 15th, 2007 22:52
“Okay… is anybody else having way too much trouble doing research on the DP topic? It seemed like it would be easy, but now that I look up stuff, it all seems to be US specific. Damn it. ”
I feel that this is by far one of the easiest topics to research…
try googling “death penalty”
try going to your library…they’ll probably have a few books…
being us specific isn’t necessarily a bad thing…as people alluded to earlier, b/c the US does relatively many excecutions - and many books/essays focus on the merits of the death penalty itself even if focuses on the US
also, many authors discuss whether the death penalty is moral/just
the point is…as least for common arguments and even for more unique ones, research shouldn’t be the biggest challenge
Posted from: 71.156.51.240
August 15th, 2007 23:11
on the substantive argument that dan and lexy are discussing… tommy made it clear that when the vbi staff was prepping for the topic analysis (made plural) that there was very little agreement on what a just society implies. i really don’t think there is a right or wrong answer in this discussion but it should be interesting to see which side predominantly wins this debate in round
Posted from: 76.202.61.55
August 15th, 2007 23:12
the topic area looks very interesting, but unfortunately, this seems like a topic that is going to be very framework intensive ‘a just society’ which isn’t going to be very interesting unless there’s some good philosophical argumentation, not just recycled theory
Posted from: 128.97.179.106
August 15th, 2007 23:52
to post #67; i’m confident it would absolve zombies of being held morally responsible for their actions, though i’m assuming that zombies would have some kind of neural activity, and not a synthetic nano-neural-network (i mean, who knows, right?)…which being a singularity might transcend human consciousness, producing ‘real’ free will, making zombies, and only zombies, morally culpable for their actions. These are the thoughts that come after 18 hours of straight topic discussion…time for wesley to go back to sleep.
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
August 16th, 2007 00:08
speaking of china, it might be worth noting that the organs of those executed in china are frequently removed and given to those who need organ transplants. just? unjust? you decide.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 16th, 2007 01:13
to post number 71 and 72-you are a beast!
Posted from: 88.110.156.248
August 16th, 2007 04:26
Just a suggestion. How about stopping wasting space and time showing off your naughty words…and a little focus on the topic itself? I’m feeling very tired and extremely old.
I think Daniel’s points are excellent. The time frame-y one (will the society continue to be just in the future?) is not such a big deal to me, but the issue of a just society v. just individuals is very interesting. If a society can be just, but include unjust individuals, it seems that even in a just society, there might be potential for wrongful convictions and biased use of the DP. This would allow the aff. to access the DP = racist/classist literature (of which there is a great deal).
I would not, however, feel comfortable relying on this line of argumentation on the aff. I think that a solid neg. answer would be that a just society (especially one that includes unjust individuals) would have precautionary mechanisms to prevent unjust use of the DP. This is part of what makes it a just society.
I think the aff. is on much firmer ground if s/he focuses on what is undesirable about the DP even when it is meted out in an unbiased manner. Some of my opinion is based on strategy (why risk writing a case that relies on a vulnerable premise?), but some of it is based on my (albeit foggy) memory of the topic committee meeting last summer. I’m pretty sure the just society language was added in order to avoid arguments along the lines of, “the state/the US is unjust, therefore the DP will be used badly.” We wanted to focus the debate on the desirability/undesirability of the DP itself, rather than open the doors to a generic state/US good/bad debate (which we seem to get every time a topic examines possible state action).
The topic framing process is very difficult. We have a limited amount of time to craft 10 topics. For each topic selected we try to consider how the wording might be used/abused, but there’s no test good enough to anticipate everything a large, diverse, and generally intelligent community will do with the topic once it’s released.
Posted from: 216.159.104.202
August 16th, 2007 05:48
Well said, Lexy.
Let me also remind the community that your schools get to VOTE on the topics to be used!!! Please visit the NFL website to vote on the possible upcoming topics! The NFL doesn’t choose them…you do!
Posted from: 70.150.82.87
August 16th, 2007 07:22
I’m thrilled about the PFD topic as it has a lot of good ground for both PRO/CON debates - and because I sent in a resolution VERY similar to the NFL in june.
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
August 16th, 2007 08:13
I would like to wade into the “just society” issue that Lexy and Dan are discussing (though this is something I will deal with more in depth in a topic analysis).
In this discussion, there is an embedded assumption that justice is synonymous with perfection in implementation. While that is certainly a reasonable position, it is not the only one that comes to mind. In fact, were it so, no existing or historical society could be called just. Now, those who would argue justice is an absolute ideal we strive for — rather some reasonable threshold — would have no problem saying “Yes, there is not and has never been a ‘just society’”, albeit with the odd consequence that if that were so - we would have no way of understanding whether a just society would embrace a death penalty or not because we would have no knowledge of it. The best we could do then is argue than an UNjust society betters or worsens its arc towards the heretofore unattained “just” label by embracing/abolishing the death penalty. That debate would very much seem to benefit from considerations of the current use/misuse/abuse/implementation of the death penalty in those “unjust” societies that use it. By this reasoning, and absolutist conception of “just society” would still permit all considerations of our historical and contemporary experience with the death penalty.
A “reasonable threshold” view of a “just society” would similarly permit evidence about how the death penalty is used today. Why? Because under a reasonable threshold, there is an implicit admission that there is a margin of imperfection or injustice that is still permissible. As Lexy noted, we could conceive a just society as one with structural precautions, but even then, those precautions might and often do fail due to free will. And to the extent free will is valuable in a just society, we must account for it. Thus, in a society that recognizes justice short of perfection, we must account for free will and therefore how humans have actually exhibited the will to use state power to implement the death penalty.
Either way, bring on the literature.
All of this said, I want to say — as may be apparent above - this is an excellent topic, will produce great debates, and the Topic Committee has done a good service to the community, even if their strictest intention does not entirely play out.
p.s. If anyone is looking to card Lexy for a theory blocks, I think they should card this — very honest and wise sentiment — as a reason why Framer’s Intent/Topic Committee Intent is not a preferred standard:
“The topic framing process is very difficult. We have a limited amount of time to craft 10 topics. For each topic selected we try to consider how the wording might be used/abused, but there’s no test good enough to anticipate everything a large, diverse, and generally intelligent community will do with the topic once it’s released.”
That is not a jab at anyone, it is just another praise to Lexy for telling us what was intended but also being honest and modest about the limitations of the process given the constraints they face.
Posted from: 128.249.243.230
August 16th, 2007 11:06
To Lexy/ any one else on the topic committee:
Out of curioisty, what was the rationale for the topic saying “a just society” as opposed to “a just state” or “a just government”?
If you don’t remember, that’s totally cool.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 16th, 2007 14:21
My guess would be that the healthcare topic from last year had ‘just government’ and the NFL wanted to mix things up a little.
Just a (not very) educated guess.
Posted from: 88.109.242.154
August 16th, 2007 14:23
Anjan–
Thanks for the great input. And if you want more ammo on the problems w/ framers’ intent, it’s just like the difficulties of figuring out legislative intent, only worse (as there is no record of the proceedings). There are several people on the committee, so trying to ascertain a single intent is certain to be problematic.
I think the best T standards relate to fairness and debatability. There really do need to be two roughly equal sides to the resolution to have fun and educational debates. The problem with LD is that unlike Policy, there’s just not enough time for a thoughtful treatment of T. While there’s not really enough speech time in round, the even greater problem is that the topics’ lives are too short for T to serve its purpose. T is how the Policy world deals with unbalanced topics. Over the course of the season, if the sense is that the topic is too broad and negatives are being destroyed by a multitude of small and unpredictable cases, judges can raise their standards on T. If, however, it becomes clear that there is little defensible affirmative ground (like last year), judges can be more forgiving on T (as they were last year). Over the course of the season a consensus on T grows as a result of experience in debate rounds. In LD, we get 2-4 tournaments on a topic, which is nowhere near enough time for T to work its balancing magic.
Please do not understand this to mean that I think LD topics should last longer. Many are truly tapped out in a couple of tournaments. But do understand that this means that in LD-land T cannot protect us from unfortunately worded topics the way that it can in Policy-land. I think that the historical attitude toward LD topic wording was that it was LESS critical than Policy topic wording, because a crap topic would only be around for a short while. The opposite is true. In Policy there’s an entire season to use T to shape the topic into something debatable. In LD there’s no time for this. Even worse, we’ve got to come up with ten topics, five of which will be used. The sheer number of topics needed greatly increases the chances that some will not be up to snuff.
Posted from: 88.109.242.154
August 16th, 2007 14:25
Becca-
I think there was some concern that negatives would argue that the resolution was inherently flawed because no state or government could be just.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 16th, 2007 14:29
Could one legitimately argue on this topic that a just society is one that strives to achieve “X” standard (reducing suffering, equality, maximizing human worth etc.) and then argue something to the effect of “X” standard is the best standard of justice, and abolishing or not using the death penalty would moce us closer to achieving that standard, or that the death penalty intrinsically violates that standard?
That was one very long sentence.
Posted from: 71.139.25.186
August 16th, 2007 14:56
With regard to Anjan’s post 77 about Framer’s Intent:
I don’t think your argument makes sense. Lexy says that they had a goal in mind while framing the topic - they wanted to avoid US implementation bad debates. Thus they added just society as a qualifier. Then she says that it is infinitely regressive to think that the resolution’s wording can capture the committee’s meaning without being re-interpreted by the debate community. This seems to suggest that Framer’s Intent is actually one of the best theory standards, because the resolution is ambiguous in its wording but the Framer’s view is not.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
August 16th, 2007 15:43
I agree with Moerner.. It seems as if Framer’s Intent is a way of anticipating cases and limiting to the ground that the framers invisioned rather than the many creative cases that debaters are able to envision. Referencing zombies for example.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 16th, 2007 15:56
the resolution is ambiguous, but Moerner’s beastliness is not.***
Posted from: 63.246.171.93
August 16th, 2007 16:05
In regards to Moerner’s post in number 83;
I think that what you said might be a valid logical deduction from the argument that Lexy made, but it seems to me very ironic that you are in support of arguments about the “intent” of framers, when in post 80, Lexy is very directly against “Framer’s Intent” as a standard, showing that her original comment was not intended to support it.
A few comments about framer’s intent:
It seems like the problems raised that could be solved with a framer’s intent standard (zombie cases, ambiguity) are already solved by topicality standards; It would seem like a more intuitive argument to say that a zombies case is non-topical than to say that the framer’s didn’t envision zombies (except in their nightmares).
In response to what Anjan in 77:
At least on first look, it doesn’t seem to make sense to say what an unjust society SHOULD do, because an unjust society defenitionally does what it shouldn’t…
Either way, I think this is shaping up to be a pretty sweet topic–it’s thankfully not as esoteric as some of the ones in the past, but there is still plenty of ground and literature.
Posted from: 218.26.251.202
August 16th, 2007 17:00
LOLZ DEFINITION OF JUSTICE PWNZ0RZ
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
August 16th, 2007 17:27
Not to sidetrack but only because Mr. Moerner’s point (post 83) is an interesting one, my point was to reference Lexy’s statement “but there’s no test good enough to anticipate everything a large, diverse, and generally intelligent community will do with a topic once it’s released.” The “test” referenced, of course, is the Topic Committee’s ability to anticipate entirely the use/misuse of words. And if that intent therefore cannot anticipate the meaning, then it ultimately cannot determine whether an interpretation is preferable or not — only whether it was anticipated or not.
Further, Daniel, your response then rests on this crucial notion, “the resolution is ambiguous in its wording but the Framer’s view is not.” Lexy’s post (Post 80) before your point adequately pointed to the rather egregious issues with asserting that a “Framer’s view” is not ambiguous, especially when the “Framer” in this case is a “Topic Selection Committee” and your evidence of the framer’s intent is a post by one member of that Committee on the VBD topic announcement. As Lexy alludes to, you can’t divine legislative intent just because a Senatory from a Bill’s committee says something about it on salon.com.
Having judged Daniel, I agree that his beastliness as a debater is not in question :-) . . .
but the suggestion that there is a “Framer’s Intent” and that it was reflected in Post 74 (when the post itself disavows the intent, the so-called “Framer” disavows using Framer’s intent (as Devin pointed out), and this is not a sanctioned forum to exhibit such intent) very much is questionable.
Having once had my own topic analysis carded back at me in a round I was judging, I would similarly prefer not to hear rounds devolve into 4 minute 1AR defenses of interpretation based on VBD posts. We might as well just wiki the entire resolutional term, insert whatever definition suits your case best, and then argue limits good/wiki good (that was not a suggestion for a strategy btw).
Posted from: 71.206.221.109
August 16th, 2007 19:29
lexy says:
“I would not, however, feel comfortable relying on this line of argumentation on the aff. I think that a solid neg. answer would be that a just society (especially one that includes unjust individuals) would have precautionary mechanisms to prevent unjust use of the DP. This is part of what makes it a just society.”
this is exactly why ‘just society means the society does nothing wrong’ is a bad interp - it lets negs avoid any aff impact claim that in any way implicates the social context of the death penalty. like it or not, racism/jury bias are key parts of the literature, and itd be naive to limit those arguments out of the topic because we’d rather have the topic ‘retributive punishment - yes or no?’
its also unclear what affs could talk about the death penalty in a vacuum. this is where the ‘is a just society one where every individual is also just?’ question becomes a double-bind under lexy’s interp. if we assume that every individual is just, then we’d never need the death penalty because no one would commit a heinous crime. lets assume instead that, although each individual is not just, society is just “on balance.” in that case, how do we decide what aspects of that society are just and which are unjust?
lexy says T doesnt work in LD because topics are short. the difference is that T isnt designed to serve the same function in LD because negs have consistent link ground based on the resolution. its not important for affs to know what limits the community sets for plan action - they will always have to defend the whole res under dominant LD norms. this means that T only determines what advantage areas are topical and doesnt do much to change what the aff has to prep to answer or what the neg can prep to run. T in LD is much much more about in-round implications - thats why most judges have an extremely high threshold for potential abuse.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 16th, 2007 19:36
once again….mangus FTW
Posted from: 76.202.61.55
August 16th, 2007 20:23
HOW much research have people done so far
Posted from: 69.107.88.188
August 16th, 2007 21:20
run author’s intent on moerner’s strawman cutting of lexy.
Posted from: 69.120.226.54
August 16th, 2007 21:20
TWO YEARS WORTH OF RESEARCH!
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 16th, 2007 23:21
I think a far bigger hurdle than “a just society has perfect implementation” for using the race/class bias empirics is their US-specificity. The US has its own unique tradition of race relations and criminal law; there is no reason to suppose, for example, that the same trends held in Europe before the dp’s outlawing there. I think affs are going to have some diesel psych cards to run bias cases.
Posted from: 24.205.208.178
August 17th, 2007 05:27
Why can’t anyone argue that a just society has to respect free will and thus can’t require a racist or a sexist to not be such? A required respect of free will would allow a just society that didn’t require every individual member to act justly all of the time. So what’s to say you can’t get a racist judge in a just society?
Additionally, I think any aff using the racism argument ought not do so from an empirical standpoint because they are open to the objection no just society exists, and thus we can’t have empirics on a just society. Even if we can draw general principles from specific instances, we don’t know the intricacies of a just societies system, and thus don’t know if even those general principles apply anymore.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 17th, 2007 08:06
your totally right, I mean racism doesn’t exist in a just society like the US…
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 17th, 2007 08:51
ok, now i’m just confused. As far as UAP#blah’s first paragraph goes, i think the logic is right — but the empirics are based on a structurally biased system, not on the chance of someone somewhere happening to draw a racist jury.
In terms of the second argument — i really don’t think we have to deal with a totally abstract society. The trick is to distill what is unique to the death penalty, not to any one country.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 17th, 2007 11:33
Under this resolution, there CAN’T be a totally just society. If everyone in the society was just, then there wouldn’t be murder, thus there wouldn’t be reason to punish it and the resolution would be nonsense.
I think teh easiest way to aproach this would be to argue that a just society is one that does just things (kinda hard to argue with that), and that the dp is unjust, therefore a just society ought not use it.
Posted from: 76.202.61.55
August 17th, 2007 13:34
idk, fritzpielstick. that arg assumes that a totally just society means that everyone is just, which relies on a definition of society as the totality of individuals in the society.
Posted from: 169.232.71.232
August 17th, 2007 13:36
organ harvesting pwns zombies
Posted from: 169.232.243.62
August 17th, 2007 13:57
more zombies.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 17th, 2007 14:30
to afadsf:
All I was arguing is that the “just society” under this topic cannot exist where every single person is just, that’s all. I would assume that is what “totally just” means, but that’s actually kind of irrelevant.
ppl could make discrimination args and use this as a spike for “a just society wouldn’t discriminate.”
just an idea.
btw, we should harvest organs FROM zombies, and develop a vaccine for salinum.
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 17th, 2007 14:36
that’s just straight creepy. *sniff* “And I’d like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Zorg, without whose selfless sacrifice I wouldn’t be talking to you today…”
Posted from: 68.164.171.128
August 17th, 2007 18:44
In answer to Michael re: the whole rez nature of LD obviating the need for T.
You’re correct that the whole rez approach commonly accepted in LD does solve the problem of predictability. It does not, however, solve for unequal ground, which is the problem I was trying to get at.
Posted from: 68.212.158.248
August 18th, 2007 13:44
zombies = abusive to the neg?
Posted from: 68.212.158.248
August 18th, 2007 13:50
In response to post 10…
“Oh well death penalty is just as good!”
Did anyone else pick up on the pun?
Posted from: 72.70.119.128
August 18th, 2007 16:52
omg stfu already with the zombies
The wording for this topic is especially interesting in the way that it forces us to consider the difference between a “just society” and a “just government.” It makes perfect sense to imagine a just government that has procedural checks, good intentions, etc., but rules over a society of people who oftentimes commit unjust actions. But what is a “just society” made up of people that would commit the sorts of crimes that would inspire a debate over the death penalty?
Also, any thoughts on why the ending clause of “as a form of punishment” was included? Isn’t it redundant given the word “penalty?”
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
August 18th, 2007 20:47
I’m using it to preclude arguments, any sensible person would do the same.
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 18th, 2007 22:31
Yeah but does it mean that the primary use of the dp has to be to punish? As opposed to achieving some other sort of benefit?
Posted from: 123.112.2.155
August 19th, 2007 03:30
What else can you use the death penalty for besides punishment? I mean, can you use it in place of sugar for your coffee in the morning? Because that’d be pretty sweet.
Posted from: 70.183.125.2
August 19th, 2007 06:17
In regards to arguements that the death penalty can convict people that never really committed a crime, wouldn’t a just society have a just form of due process? Therefore bringing it down to whether killing a truly guilty felon is “just” or correct.
Posted from: 68.48.175.11
August 19th, 2007 06:18
deterrence.
Posted from: 69.248.7.220
August 19th, 2007 06:24
Yeah, deterrence was what I was thinking of mostly, along with that arg about ’symbolically expelling the person from society’ and other ones like that.
Posted from: 68.164.171.128
August 19th, 2007 08:25
Most texts on criminal law list deterrence as one of the purposes of punishment (they are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation). So…the “as a form of punishment” language does not rule out discussions of deterrence.
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
August 19th, 2007 08:51
Re: Lexy’s post - that is fair. I was too narrow in my conception of punishment. I think that does, however, beg the original question of post 109 what meaning, if any, the words “as a form of punishment” have in the resolution.
Posted from: 69.3.236.174
August 19th, 2007 19:17
Personally, I think the wording is redundant. I said so at the topic meeting. I think others were worried that affs. might do something totally silly (like argue that a just society ought not use the DP as entertainment, or population control). I didn’t think this was needed, because the whole rez norm in LD would have prevented that without the “as a form of punishment” language. So…yeah…I think the wording is functionally redundant.
I do, however, think the “as a form or punishment” language does help remove one more reasonable argument from the debate. Lots of literature on deterrence argues that the consequentialist premise of deterrence would justify killing or imprisoning the innocent (if doing so would deter crime). For example, if we can’t catch the real killer, frame and execute an innocent person in order to send the message that murder will not be tolerated. While deterrence is a purpose of punishment, not all deterrence is punishment. Penalties knowingly meted out to the innocent in order to deter would not really be punishments (as they would not be consequences of the innocent person’s actions). Another example of deterrence that is not punishment is security cameras. That said, I don’t think there was a great risk of affs. winning on “we should not intentionally execute the innocent.” Same problem as trying to win on “we should not execute people for entertainment.”
Posted from: 70.183.125.2
August 20th, 2007 13:42
In response to Lexy’s post, wouldn’t a just society have a just and fair due process system though, and not convict innocent people?
Posted from: 76.107.127.21
August 20th, 2007 14:46
Is there any fundamental difference when arguing about a “just society” as opposed to a “just government”? Isn’t it reasonable to say that a “just government” is a neccessary componant in order for society to reach the status of a “just society” (thus rendering the two somewhat synonymous as far as how to debate)?
Posted from: 76.107.127.21
August 20th, 2007 14:50
I forgot to add that I ask this question because it seems that the debates would have to be justice system/government centric; considering that I doubt we are discussing some subset of society with no government executing people…
Posted from: 76.87.169.74
August 20th, 2007 15:14
en - i think you’re generaly correct - the two terms will be functionally the same in a lot of debates. That being said, “a just society” seems concerned with more than the fair application of law. A just society may also be concerned with combatting preconditions of criminal behavior (e.g. unfair distribution of resources, bias, isms and so forth). As I think Lexy forwarded in a previous post, the term may be used to force affirmatives to move beyond the unfair application debate and instead ask questions about the inherent rightness of the penalty removed from the conditions present within the unjust society.
Posted from: 71.250.165.54
August 20th, 2007 20:52
I WIN.
if i could post pwn4g3 pictures in here i would right now.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 20th, 2007 21:16
panda strikes again
Posted from: 155.97.202.48
August 20th, 2007 21:20
super cliche..but hey, it’ll be good to start the season with something easy, especially for novice
Posted from: 209.180.33.233
August 21st, 2007 12:46
How is the death penalty “super cliche”
Posted from: 72.20.128.250
August 21st, 2007 13:37
why is nobody debating ought? I think the topic has more to do with the word ought than with the word just, straight uppp
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 22nd, 2007 18:37
Most LD topics have ought in them (or should) .Its not exactly a unique or interesting term.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 22nd, 2007 18:38
“(or should)” mean or “should” (as in the h/c topic)
I didn’t mean that topics should have ought.
Or ought to have should.
Posted from: 24.25.142.244
August 28th, 2007 15:18
Exact wording of the resolution that we had at NSD in 2006.