BREAKING NEWS: It’s Felons
posted by Jon Cruz on October 1st, 2008
RIPON, Wis. — The National Forensic League announced this morning the Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution for the months of November and December.
It reads, “Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.”
This is the resolution for Apple Valley, Hendrick Hudson, the Glenbrooks, Princeton, Isidore Newman, Dowling Catholic, and a host of local and regional tournaments across the country. What are your thoughts on the new topic?
Popularity: 10%
no more tag found, sorry
85 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: It’s Felons”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Jake Nebel Wins Big Bronx XXXVIII
- Chris Theis Claims Second St. Mark's Title
- BREAKING NEWS: It's Felons
- Alex Koren Wins UPenn
- Cameron Baghai Wins the Tedd Wood
- Debating the Merits of the Current Debate Topic
- Ilya Gaidarov Wins CSU Long Beach Title
- In a Close Out, Scarsdale Takes the Kaiser
- Field Report: The Kaiser
- Live Blogging the VP Debate on VBD
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
October 1st, 2008 05:16
word
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
October 1st, 2008 05:50
nice
Posted from: 71.169.27.14
October 1st, 2008 06:14
as long as we didnt get the marriage topic im happy =D
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
October 1st, 2008 06:22
Yes the birdie was wrong
Posted from: 128.62.237.53
October 1st, 2008 07:00
i likes it. lots.
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
October 1st, 2008 07:21
Hell yeah! Policy and philosophy fusion!!!
And of course the “birdie” was wrong. If they have never done it in the past, why would they do it now?
Posted from: 147.70.32.3
October 1st, 2008 07:23
WIN
Posted from: 204.8.196.66
October 1st, 2008 08:02
Yay
Posted from: 207.80.142.5
October 1st, 2008 08:03
no torture :(
Posted from: 208.125.7.2
October 1st, 2008 08:09
I am pleased
Posted from: 206.77.0.156
October 1st, 2008 08:25
It’s Decent.
Posted from: 206.41.39.34
October 1st, 2008 08:43
Is this topic talking about people who have committed a felon but who are now released, or is talking also about people currently serving jail time for committing a felony? Curious. Any ideas?
Posted from: 96.242.12.41
October 1st, 2008 10:15
Resolved: In a democratic society, phelans ought to retain the right to vote.
Posted from: 75.72.203.68
October 1st, 2008 10:33
Id bet on torture being the nationals topic.
Posted from: 69.110.137.1
October 1st, 2008 10:59
good! i really like this one.
Posted from: 74.212.17.137
October 1st, 2008 12:20
hmmmmm
Posted from: 68.192.28.123
October 1st, 2008 13:32
Yum. I value democracy.
It’s extremely refreshing to be avoiding the repetitive resolutions that all pertain to Justice.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 1st, 2008 13:41
@12, after discussing it in class, it seems to be talking about the ones that are still in prison; at least, that’s what the congress/state debates on the subject are about.
Posted from: 128.252.254.28
October 1st, 2008 15:16
i’d negate on that one Phelan
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 1st, 2008 15:20
I’d bet on Vigilantism being national topic, @14
Posted from: 67.81.91.133
October 1st, 2008 17:08
yay
Posted from: 75.51.188.154
October 1st, 2008 20:16
Blah…I have no idea how everyone can like this topic….you’re so dang limited (not to mention its lame). Sure you have creativity..but to say the same thing over and over again…
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 1st, 2008 21:40
Perhaps you’re limited.
It beats the shit out of our current topic, that’s for sure.
Posted from: 75.42.1.123
October 1st, 2008 21:54
I think any topic would beat the current topic…
Posted from: 155.97.238.226
October 1st, 2008 22:31
yay!!! having done this topic at camp, i personally think that there’s PLENTY of lit and positions on it. explore a bit :)
and most people seem to actually LIKE this one too. i feel good karma going around :P
Posted from: 72.25.111.7
October 1st, 2008 23:58
sweet i like this one!
o yea
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
October 2nd, 2008 07:15
So, lets get productive!
What definitions are good for Aff/neg?
Posted from: 66.9.13.34
October 2nd, 2008 07:30
Bleargh… this topic would be great if the framers, instead of saying “felons” would have said “EX-felons”…
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
October 2nd, 2008 08:28
No such thing as an ex-felon. Once convicted, always convicted (barring reversal on appeal).
A felon is someone who has been duly convicted of a felony, as defined by the convicting jurisdiction.
BC
Posted from: 66.9.13.34
October 2nd, 2008 08:42
That I agree with… doesn’t seem to stop the literature from using the term liberally, however, making things pretty awkward.
Posted from: 68.193.247.107
October 2nd, 2008 16:57
Or just annoying. This will have to be a topic with clear definitions, and I for one will hesitate over buying “ex-felon” since the legal system, which is the context here, is not really going to support a flexible definition. Perhaps other folks using words less carefully have cluttered the literature, but Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence would indicate that one is either a felon or not a felon, based solely on a prior upstanding conviction of a crime labeled a felony.
BC, JD
Posted from: 75.42.197.105
October 2nd, 2008 22:47
“Resolved: In a democratic society, phelans ought to retain the right to vote.”
fail. you’re doing it wrong.
Posted from: 76.31.82.108
October 4th, 2008 12:04
At least we’ll be something more original than the usual “I value justice/morality” shit.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 4th, 2008 12:07
Well, considering there are so many different definitions from philosophers of Justice, I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Posted from: 76.31.82.108
October 4th, 2008 13:22
There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just nice to see a topic where you have some room to explore value-wise.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 4th, 2008 13:43
Yeah, I do agree. But where I’m from, the value clash doesn’t really matter (if there is one), it’s all about the criteria.
Posted from: 165.189.32.4
October 6th, 2008 15:31
Awesome topic. I’m going to have the best arg ever. I’m going to roll with the elections disad and no will be able to answer it, because Lincoln Douglas debaters don’t know what uniqueness is.
Posted from: 70.231.128.37
October 6th, 2008 19:02
oh you’re so hip, rolling an elections DA on a case that explicitly claims to be normative.
“look judge, i understand that the AC is making a value judgment that exists outside of a temporal frame, but if you vote for them McCain will win the election!”
No.
Posted from: 71.169.35.165
October 6th, 2008 19:20
@37
1) we do know what uniqueness -.-
2) even if ld debaters didnt know what uniqueness is chances are ld judges probably wouldnt know what it is either.
confused judges = you lose normally? no?
Posted from: 24.7.71.153
October 6th, 2008 19:35
bob–i bet most LDers know enough to understand that you don’t control uniqueness for an elections scenario when, believe it or not, all of the tournaments on the topic take place after the election.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 6th, 2008 21:25
Also, the topic is not US specific. Shit, no elections DA. Whatever shall we do?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 6th, 2008 21:27
And, I think its gonna be a bitch finding a “McCain leads Obama by 23% among rapists and murderers, especially in key swing state of Virginia” cards.
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
October 7th, 2008 08:03
And, the fact that disadvantages are generally discouraged, if not forbidden in LD will be a bit of a set-back, now wouldn’t it @37?
Posted from: 165.189.32.4
October 7th, 2008 12:14
Caucus is actually before the election. Just because the election is over doesn’t mean the disad is dead. There’s still lame duck which can be argued until the 100 day agenda of either candidate. Politics disads never die.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 7th, 2008 13:59
And I’m sure that no one will realize that the disadvantage has nothing to do with clashing values, right?
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
October 7th, 2008 14:20
Is this some sort of performance?
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
October 7th, 2008 16:12
@ 43, i don’t know who said DA’s were forbidden in LD. On the nukes topic DA’s were one of the most common ways to negate
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 7th, 2008 16:36
NFL rules does discourage Disadvantages, at least that’s what I’ve been told as a coach. It makes sense, though, because LD was created as an alternative to policy debate.
Second, it really doesn’t have much link to the overarching theme of LD debate: the value clash. At least, certainly not the one “bob” was talking about.
And finally, being a policy tactic and discouraged in LD debate (I’m pretty sure), Many judges flash warning signs when they hear word of a kritik, disadvantage, solvency, and the like. They would much rather hear an intelligent debate over policy/philosophy, linking back to the value structure.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
October 7th, 2008 19:35
[ ] mr jones understands LD
[ ] people in LD understand disads or uniqueness
[x] i thought what jake did
Posted from: 75.25.12.85
October 7th, 2008 19:40
Lol at 48. Sad thing is, debates becoming more and more like policy in the higher powered rounds on the National Circuit. The reality is that LD is changing and old school judges can’t bring it back. :(
By the way, “intelligent debate over policy” can’t happen without solvency, because policy’s can’t be carried out without plans, and plans need to have solvency to work.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 8th, 2008 13:41
Cool.
And Bob can do whatever he wants, its not our fault when he gets draped for pulling a non LD oriented disadvantage.
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
October 8th, 2008 16:31
Mr Jones what region do you teach/coach in? Are most of the judges usually older coaches, community members or college/graduate students?
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 8th, 2008 18:05
A mixture of all three, but mainly college students/former competitors for prelims, with coaches and experienced community members for out rounds. I coach in Oklahoma, though I did some judging out of college in Houston. I’m not a big fan of this more “progressive movement”, I believe that a focus on communication is crucial in a model LD round. Jones is not my real last name.
Posted from: 147.70.32.3
October 9th, 2008 07:27
“Judge, you must affirm, because if you Negate and you’ve been convicted before… then you can’t write anything on the ballot.”
Posted from: 165.124.213.230
October 9th, 2008 13:15
bob-
an elections DA is useless without a CP that solves case or if you’re rolling them on case d. you aren’t going to win anything but the smallest risk of offense because it’s such a contrived scenario.
also, u o/w the link, the cards here are really good and true.
Posted from: 98.201.169.46
October 9th, 2008 14:50
whatever happened to ‘topic for debate?’
when is that feature coming back? this little discussion has either caught people at their most bored, or should be talked about?
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 9th, 2008 16:22
Agreed @56. Here’s an argument for y’all to tear down:
Felon disenfranchisement is unjust because it constitutes double punishment. If the felon has already served his punishment, and repaid his debt to society, then why should he have to face further retribution? Especially considering that this extraneous punishment is arbitrary, existing only in some societies, and not holding through for misdemeanors or those under 18, I contend that no democratic society ought to uphold disenfranchisement.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
October 9th, 2008 16:32
[ ] argument above has a terminal impact
[x] checkbox abuse
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 9th, 2008 16:47
…Don’t speak garbage please. Either that, or explain what you mean.
Posted from: 24.34.119.26
October 9th, 2008 17:39
This topic is atrocious.
“I’m not a big fan of this more “progressive movement”, I believe that a focus on communication is crucial in a model LD round.”
And why are those two mutually exclusive? Do the model LD rounds you enjoy have any content?
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
October 9th, 2008 17:59
good god, i guess i’ll tackle this terrible argument:
a) there is no impact to “double punishment”. in order for this argument to matter there would need to be an articulation of why this is a bad thing, who this hurts, etc.
b) why should our means of retribution be confined to one punishment? does this mean we can’t give people prison and a fine, or a fine and community service, or community service and probation? this seems like an artificial limitation on the range of punishments that is grounded in arithmetic rather than fairness.
c) this begs the question of whether the felon has, in fact, repaid his debt to society. warrant please.
d) we limit people’s freedom after we release them from prison all the time, often with good reason. there is a good reason child molesters do not get to celebrate their release with cake and ice cream at the local elementary school. one justification for restricting the rights of felons after they are released is that their crimes are an affront to the social contract (this might ring a bell, given the tenor of your previous posts) that a democratic and pluralistic society demands.
e) again, saying this is “arbitrary” is begging the question. see c.
f) “existing only in some societies” is not a reason why it is arbitrary, nor does it speak to the value question of the resolution at all.
g) why are misdemeanors not categorically distinct from felonies? this argument does not speak to the larger issue of whether criminals should have the right to vote restricted which seems to be the value question at issue here.
h) those under 18…wait for it…can’t vote!!!! obviously restricting rights that don’t exist makes 1000% sense. besides, one could argue that they’re less culpable, and that the threshold for permanent restriction of their rights should be higher.
next argument plz
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 9th, 2008 18:02
No they are not mutually exclusive. However, whenever I judge at Harvard I am always disappointed to see competitors rattle of evidence at breakneck speak so I only catch half of it. I would like to see more rounds where the speakers speak at an audible rate, using evidence only to back up their persuasive arguments, and mix philosophy in with it all. And please, this is a debate. Don’t be rude.
An example? The 2007 national final round was just sheer beauty. I make all my students emulate the qualities of the speakers.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 9th, 2008 18:48
Well, obviously I should have fully demonstrated my argument instead of just shown the basis behind it.
Unfortunately, I have not came up with fully detailed contentions yet, so I will not be able to post any 2-3 sentence argument without “Where is your warrant to your standard?” “Where is the evidence?”
So obviously, this isn’t a good idea if you actually take this to be a literal debate, rather than a sharing of ideas.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 9th, 2008 18:57
Do you see what I’m saying, @61? Really, the only point that I wanted to hear was your subpoint B, which was a good point. I don’t want to here you attack the logistics of the argument, because obviously, I did not just go and post a case. I wanted to cover the actual meet, the actual reason why what I’m saying is not true, not because it lacks something which you will find in an “actual debate round.”
So, what you should have done is just stuck with your point B, because that is the only way you attack my actual argument as it stands alone. Which, btw, is agreeably not a very strong point, even with evidence and further warranting, it is rather easy to refute. I wouldn’t use it if I wrote a case.
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
October 9th, 2008 19:19
i love that smitty 8 pointed that shit.
for what it’s worth, double-punishment is a bad argument
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 9th, 2008 20:39
“Which, btw, is agreeably not a very strong point, even with evidence and further warranting, it is rather easy to refute.”
If this is true, then why did you waste five posts talking about it?
Posted from: 69.249.81.14
October 9th, 2008 20:47
This… Is going to get ugly. Pull out Mr.Jones Pull out!!!!!!!
Posted from: 69.249.81.14
October 9th, 2008 20:52
I might be wrong here, but aren’t “felonies” exclusive to the U.S. and England, or, not universal terms. What I’m trying to get to is that if only one government implements a specific standard of judgment upon individuals then the debate should be constrained to that government.
Posted from: 68.81.159.124
October 9th, 2008 21:24
I believe that the U.S. and England are the only countries to employ the term “felon,” with the possible exception of Australia or other countries that derive their legal systems from the British common-law system.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 9th, 2008 21:50
According to wikipedia:
In common law legal systems, a felony is a serious crime, often contrasted with a misdemeanor. In the U.S. legal system, this distinction is principally made in criminal law, wherein the Federal government considers a misdemeanor crime punishable with five days to a year in jail, and a felony crime as punishable with a year or more in prison; infractions, lesser crimes, are punishable with five days or less jail time, or no jail time.[1]
Most common law jurisdictions have abolished the distinction between felony and misdemeanor, (e.g. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic., Australia) s. 332B(1), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW., Australia) s. 580E(1)). Such jurisdictions have adopted other classifications, e.g. in Canada, Australia, Republic of Ireland, and the U.K., a crime is either a summary offence or an indictable offence.
Now we know.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 9th, 2008 21:53
I’m also pretty sure that out of the few countries that call serious criminals “felons” the US is the only one that takes away voting rights. If this is true, then you can say that the topic is US specific and debate accordingly.
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
October 10th, 2008 07:27
Wrong. China. Ukraine. Austrailia. And probably many more.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 10th, 2008 13:54
Oooohhh! Epic Fail!
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 10th, 2008 17:15
You calling me epic fail is like George W. Bush calling Stephen Hawking retarded.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 10th, 2008 17:27
@72
I dont know about China or Ukraine, but according to the interwebs the Australian legal system does not label serious criminals as “felons”. Instead, they separate crimes into “summary offesnes” and “indictable offenses”.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 10th, 2008 17:38
…Considering A. I was merely remarking on a refutation of an argument B. You don’t even know me, The fact that you’re insulting someone who you don’t even know makes you the one who’s not look to smart, my friend. Let’s not be name calling.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 10th, 2008 18:38
*Not too smart*
Posted from: 65.8.81.85
October 10th, 2008 18:41
China… democratic?
õ.o
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 10th, 2008 19:06
That’s a good point, but @71 says that out of the few countries that call their criminals felons, the U.S. is the only one the disenfranchises felons. Which, if it is true that China does in fact do the same, whether or not it is democratic or not has no relevance, @72 has still proven his argument false.
And what about Canada? I’m not positive, but don’t they do the same as the U.S.?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
October 10th, 2008 22:31
No. Canada uses the same legal terminology as Australia. Thx Wikipedia!
Also, the word “felon” is an english legal term. I highly doubt the Chinese use english-based legal terms in their criminal justice system.
Posted from: 208.34.32.165
October 12th, 2008 10:17
Felon is used only in English common law and orginally meant one whose crime warranted the confiscation of his fee, or fief–later, his land or goods. Thus conviction of a felony has always led to collateral punishment of serious crimes.
In the U.S., however, voting rights are controlled by the states, thanks to the 14th amendment. Nearly all states already have provisions for felons to get their voting rights back after serving their sentences, and two states allow them to vote while in prison.
Who says this is a good topic? It would seem to be moot unless it applies to felons still in prison or on probabation.
Posted from: 218.78.225.169
October 16th, 2008 20:06
# 80 here has a point. China uses mandarin for its criminal code. Trying to translate Chinese characters directly into English common-law legal terminology is at best a very very flexible translation. At that point, you might as well translate “reform through labor” sentences as “going to Guantanamo Bay”. The two concepts have some tangential relation, but utterly are taken out of their contexts.
Besides the “democratic society” qualifier problem, you also have the big issue that many serious crimes are dealt with via administrative detention or punishment before a case even appears in the legal system. Also, the Chinese criminal justice system bears very minimal resemblance to the English or American systems, which definitely makes the translation of “felon” even more activist.
Posted from: 76.93.249.254
November 8th, 2008 15:39
I would negate, just because that is my pesonal feeling that if they are a criminal they obviously dont have good judgement, through the Constitution: it takes away a criminal’s right to vote by due process, and if the arguement stands that once a felon, always a felon, then the neg would win because due process stands. A good Aff arguement i found was rights maximization, and equality. I belive the value of democracy is circular logic: you can’t use democracy to determine what is democratic. the same with the last resolution, you cant use morality to determine what is moral.
Posted from: 68.104.93.172
November 10th, 2008 00:40
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
lots to work on lotssss
to work on
:0
Posted from: 59.161.150.203
November 18th, 2008 16:13
This will have to be a topic with clear definitions, and I for one will hesitate over buying “ex-felon” since the legal system, which is the context here, is not really going to support a flexible definition. Perhaps other folks using words less carefully have cluttered the literature, but Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence would indicate that one is either a felon or not a felon, based solely on a prior upstanding conviction of a crime labeled a felony.