BREAKING NEWS: Hate Crime Enhancements for March-April
RIPON, Wis. — The resolution for the March and April, as announced by the National Forensic League, reads: “Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.”
This topic is typically one that much of the country uses for NFL qualifers, state qualifiers, and state tournaments. Earlier, in the hours leading up to the announcement, we asked you what topics you hoped to be debating. Now we can ask: what are your thoughts on the new topic?
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. (42%, 108 Votes)
Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic. (16%, 41 Votes)
In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government. (12%, 30 Votes)
Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. (10%, 26 Votes)
Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions. (6%, 15 Votes)
International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries. (5%, 13 Votes)
Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States. (5%, 13 Votes)
Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices. (4%, 9 Votes)
Popularity: 6% [?]
test
56 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Hate Crime Enhancements for March-April”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Ask Cruz: Volume X
- Chris Theis is Barkley Forum Champion
- Shadman Zaman Wins Columbia
- Shadman Zaman Wins Lexington
- BREAKING NEWS: Hate Crime Enhancements for March-April
- Lake Highland Closes Out the Crestian
- Columbia to Offer Quarters Bid in Public Forum
- Alex Rausch Wins James Logan Title
- Maeshal Abid Defends Omaha-Westside Title
- Ross Brown Wins Iowa State Title
Posted from: 169.204.230.202
January 31st, 2008 13:45
all for one and one for all.
Posted from: 65.11.210.88
January 31st, 2008 14:09
econ ineq.
pleasepleaseplease
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
January 31st, 2008 15:03
kill one to save many
Posted from: 24.151.10.137
January 31st, 2008 15:28
please not the econ inequality res
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
January 31st, 2008 15:36
I think a potentially huge problem w/ the econ. inequality resolution is that the aff just has to defend limiting the market in someways whereas the neg has to advocate maximizing market freedom, which to me seems to call for no government intervention whatsoever which can sometimes be necessary (i.e. breaking up monopolies, preventing pooling, etc.)
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
January 31st, 2008 15:52
innocents I hope, so I don’t have to coach it ever (that topic would seriously make me take a 2 month vacation from LD)
Posted from: 24.151.10.137
January 31st, 2008 15:56
Ken you’re right even though I think negs dealt with this interp rather easily given time advantage and answers to the generally bad warrants for it or cry abuse etc, at least thats how it was at camp.
The real issue with the topic is that affirming specifically posits defending one goal over another which indicates there is something about one goal that makes it preferable to another. This gives burdens to the aff that in the current state of ld debate are not ridiculous to imagine, but certainly difficult to meet.
The topic at camp seemed to devolve to one where aff’s had an almost impossible to very slim chance of ever winning the line by line, and this flaw lead to really unpredictable decisions in rounds bc/ certain judges has a preposition towards voting aff given neg skew while others voted just like they normally would. Additionally because all A/T: cap bad arguments were generally responsive the aff burden became to win first that there are unique AC impacts and that one end of the resolution does not subsume the other (i.e.why maximizng economic freedom is not responsible for limiting economic inequality etc.), second that the NC doesnt matter in terms of the aff impacts, and then weigh as to why x end is always going to be preferable to y and why that means we should make a normative statement concerning the resolution’s truth.
The end outcome was that the topic was not fun.
Posted from: 70.162.186.168
January 31st, 2008 16:00
J Null!!!
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
January 31st, 2008 16:15
I wish the resolution “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people” would have been used for TOC oppose to be wasted on march/april.
Posted from: 69.105.97.106
January 31st, 2008 17:20
I think the whole innocents topic is ridiculous because it makes the topic about one specific philo issue and takes away any pragmatic situation that isn’t either strawman or contrived. And then we have the wonderful question of what is moral for the 6320 time by my count…
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
January 31st, 2008 19:07
no dude. if it were the kill one to save many topic it would be great b/c everyone could take their AT Deontology and AT Utility blocks and make it into a case w/ the standard of deontology or utility. is that not ideal?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
January 31st, 2008 19:12
i hope for innocents because march/april is the time it could do the least damage. i’d rather have a real topic for nats.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
January 31st, 2008 19:19
wow, i think the public health concerns one was good, but unfortunately the utilitarian-based resolution won. so much neg advantage
Posted from: 24.7.116.224
January 31st, 2008 19:29
Akshay, I think you’re a bit too concerned here. No one’s going to speed on this topic, or anything like too technical. I think the aff has a lot of ground on this topic, since it can pick whatever level of economic inequality it wants limit as long as it decreases economic freedom.
Posted from: 128.54.165.135
January 31st, 2008 19:30
as long as its not the kill one innocent to save the lives of many, then i’ll be happy. ugh, that topic just begs for conditionality. like, you have to give spec scenarios for actual debate because otherwise its literally ppl throwing their 20 point answers to util/deont every round…. i really really really will hate judging that topic if it gets chosen…
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
January 31st, 2008 19:41
The Deon Util debate is irresolvable. 26 minutes of that shit would be the ugliest debate I’ve ever seen. I’m with Berryhill. And thank GOD that isn’t the TOC topic.
Posted from: 75.71.25.178
January 31st, 2008 19:55
not really thrilled with any of them. Just no more “UNITED STATES” resolutions!!
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
January 31st, 2008 20:27
how about, “In the United States, it is just to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people.”
I think that changes things up a bit.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
January 31st, 2008 21:15
I actually would prefer one that wasn’t purely the US, maybe something about Africa or Europe…that would be cool
Posted from: 71.247.195.235
January 31st, 2008 21:36
“In Cambodia, it is just to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people”
…i like it
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
January 31st, 2008 21:51
short sleeve or long sleeve?
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
January 31st, 2008 22:00
TRC or JN FTW!
i wouldnt mind having this topic for states because states suck so much already that wasting a good topic for states would make me cry.
Also, its good practice for getting mad acquainted with your good ol deont/util blocks
Posted from: 68.196.204.206
February 1st, 2008 05:24
This sucks…another United States specific topic and more justice debates
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
February 1st, 2008 07:20
I’m just happy that I don’t have to debate this topic. I just hope Jury Nullification is the Sept/Oct topic. I was hoping this would be the Deon v. Util topic because then I wouldn’t have to debate it.
I personally enjoyed the Jury Nullification and International Lenders topics at camp, although Cherian seemed to be in love with the Patent busting topic, which I think would be sick to debate.
just so long as Sept/Oct isn’t Deon/Util, I’m happy with whatever
Posted from: 163.153.27.216
February 1st, 2008 07:32
gimp topic
Posted from: 163.153.27.216
February 1st, 2008 07:38
i want JN/TRC
Posted from: 69.155.175.3
February 1st, 2008 08:03
The U.S. justice system topics are making me ill. But at least it’s not the one life for many… I might have decided to boycott districts regionals and state had that topic been selected.
Posted from: 71.139.40.206
February 1st, 2008 08:53
I believe Sept/Oct will be from the next group of topics. I can see no other reason for making Nov/Dec 07 be from this group other than to shift the topics to school-year rather than a calendar-year system.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
February 1st, 2008 10:02
I think this is nearly the perfect topic for this slot. There’s good, accessible literature. But the lack of depth on the topic would have been tough to deal with in many other slots.
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
February 1st, 2008 10:07
Ugh
Posted from: 67.163.20.6
February 1st, 2008 10:22
“hate crime enhancements”. I had a problem with this resolution in that they really mean “hate crime sentencing enhancements”. Since the “enhancements” in the resolution are being done to the hate crimes and not to the sentencing, the aff basically has to defend why “hate crimes” (defined by legal lit) have to be enhanced in some way.
Posted from: 207.118.196.193
February 1st, 2008 10:39
Sept/Oct is from the current list. It’s already been voted on. I agree with Dan Meyers that this topic is perfect for the slot. Phelan is right, I love patent busting but we can only hope others did too. Jury nullification sucks but that’s based on my personal bias about juries. I don’t think Aaron is right about how the topic will play out especially in front of the audiences that we’re going to be debating in front of for this topic. I do think it has the potential to be debated poorly but not for this reason.
Posted from: 67.163.20.6
February 1st, 2008 10:52
i think that Cherian is right about how people will actually debate this topic, I’m just pointing out a flaw in it’s text that is sort of funny if you think about it.
Posted from: 72.153.99.130
February 1st, 2008 13:35
this is bullshit
-grabs h.i. script-
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 1st, 2008 13:54
the phrase “hate crime enhacement(s)” is actually fairly commonly used. some googling turns up this data:
“hate crime sentencing enhancement” – 519 hits
“hate crime sentencing enhancements” – 9
“hate crime enhancement” – 724
“hate crime enhancements” – 1,450.
creative semanticists take heed.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
February 1st, 2008 14:49
What MM is turning up with his research is the same thing we found when tweaking the wording on the Committee. “Sentencing” just seemed to be a way to add a word that didn’t need to be there. We also figured that forcing people to to contextual research was a good thing…
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
February 1st, 2008 14:51
This is also a wonderful opportunity to remind you all that we can only have good debate topics if people submit good topics. Anyone wanting to submit a topic should contact the NFL or you can just send it to me (dan_meyers AT themeadowsschool DOT org).
Posted from: 169.229.110.108
February 1st, 2008 17:09
i agree with dan. i think this is an ideal topic given its seasonal placement. and it’s also not as “stupid” as most people are going to think it is without having done research. probably because they haven’t done research.
Posted from: 65.9.101.241
February 1st, 2008 18:05
resolved: that the international community ought to agree, construct and implement an autonomous world government to ensure global safety.
better than hate crime enhancements, ridiculous as is
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
February 1st, 2008 21:18
I want to second what Michael, Cherian, and Dan all seem to imply i.e. that the topic will only be debated in a stupid manner if debaters *choose* to debate it that way (note the flawed interpretation of Post 31) instead of doing contextual research.
To treat the phrase “hate crimes enhancements” as meaning hate crimes that are especially spiteful is irritable, out of step with the literature, and plainly an attempt to avoid debate. There is good literature and good arguments available on both sides of the topic.
It will be a great fit for this time slot in the year, as it is not difficult to figure out what it is talking about, but there is ample literature available to reward those willing to do research.
Posted from: 68.196.195.40
February 1st, 2008 21:46
does anyone foresee similar arguments found in the plea bargaining topic?
Posted from: 63.246.171.231
February 1st, 2008 22:29
I think that this differs crucially from plea bargaining in that there isn’t as clear of a utilitarian/deontology split between the negative and the affirmative.
Whereas on plea bargaining, the vast majority of negative arguments were ends-based, this topic has very important deontological ground for the negative as well. All in all, it seems to be a more balanced topic than plea bargaining.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 1st, 2008 23:25
i like this topic a lot lot, and i think it is extremely different from plea bargaining insofar as this resolution asks more of an ethical question rather than a procedural one. while pbet had some ethical impacts, they ultimately were premised on the procedural function of the resolutional action. while some might think that this resolution follows in suit with pbet based on that problem, i think mar/apr this year, based on some glances at articles and off-the-bat thoughts on the topic, asks an ethical question regarding how society treats hate crimes. i think the aff can harp on that since the resolution doesn’t specify what a ‘hate crime enhancement’ entails; i.e. the punishment changing, the social stigma behind a hate crime, etc.
also, i think this topic provides for a lot of aff ground. if kids take the time to reflect on the ton of nuances this resolution has to offer in terms of an aff frameowrk, and just having some solid warrants, affs will do very well on this topic.
tfa state will be fun.
also, i agree with devin insofar as this topic definitely doesn’t ask as much of a deontology v. utility question, and i think that’s awesome.
Posted from: 75.51.191.131
February 2nd, 2008 00:46
Na….I disagree. Ithink this topic is alot like the Death Penalty oe because the death penalty asks it shold or shouldn’t be used, and this one also asks whether hate crimes should be enhanced or not.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 2nd, 2008 11:43
i am pleasantly surprised at this topic, and completely agree w/ devin, quinn et al.
Posted from: 69.115.171.136
February 2nd, 2008 14:41
It Ends
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
February 3rd, 2008 10:28
The saving grace of this topic is that the aff proves something unjust not just, which I really like.
Posted from: 68.104.4.9
February 3rd, 2008 12:23
Jose, thank you for your submission (post 39). Even though it wasn’t emailed I’ll still bring it before the committee this June. I hope you don’t mind that I make some capitalization problems.
Posted from: 65.2.181.113
February 3rd, 2008 19:59
You’re welcome Dan Meyers, and grammatical corrections are no problem at all.
Posted from: 76.232.122.110
February 5th, 2008 00:59
Awww……noone respondd to my comments…..:(
Posted from: 168.221.143.68
February 5th, 2008 05:31
some guy, I believe that pb is more similar to this resolution… just my opinion.
Posted from: 208.120.130.198
February 11th, 2008 14:51
how are u supposed to negate this?
Posted from: 155.97.238.238
February 12th, 2008 19:04
Enh. *grimace* Not my favorite topic, but hey, that’s what I thought about plea bargaining too..and it wasn’t altogether that bad. I guess if you run something interesting the round will be interesting too.
And just for clarification:
“Hate crime enhancement: An enhancement is an addition to a term, outlined by statutes. Circumstance in aggravation (hate motivation) enables a judge to add years to a term during sentencing. Another way to understand a hate crime enhancement: A prosecutor puts special allegations before jurors, and, if jurors find the allegations to be true, the defendant gets more time on a sentence.” -CPAC
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
February 17th, 2008 01:33
well, i think that this is a somewhat flat topic compared to the patents one, the international lenders one, or the econ one. however, i think that it will lead to a good debate because there are many arguments for both sides without precluding clash. i think that there is no ground for deont/util debates which get really old really fast. the nuke one is a great topic but the debates on it were somewhat lousy because it seemed like several debates at once which made both shallow. there seemed to be one debate about whether force is just, one about the effectiveness of force, and one about MAD.
Resolved: Members of a society have a moral obligation to provide financial assistance to those who are less well off.
then i can bust out the rand cards.
Posted from: 208.180.90.100
February 22nd, 2008 11:52
sickening, perhaps if we didn’t talk about the judicial system so much. We already had judicial solution topics, death penalty/plea bargaining res. and even the resolution about government action involving nuclear weapons, we need something fresh. Econ topic would have been better.
Posted from: 96.228.49.19
February 28th, 2008 19:11
I like the Hate Crime Enhancements topic, its not as broad as the Nuke Topic and not as lame as Plea Bargaining. There are tons of great arguments for aff and negg even though it is kind of same-’ol same-’ol judicial buisness