The Instigator
kulaan
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,200 times Debate No: 7810
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

kulaan

Pro

[I would like to debate this in LD format] [This is my first debate on this site]
Aidan W. Brady
Mr. Vialpando
Debate
March 18, 2009
"Vigilantism arose from practical needs in the absence of foundations regulating social order. Their tactics solved a disorder problem and served as a symbol that [there would be] no opportunity for erosion of values inherent to a civilization." . Because I agree with author William C. Culberson ( (Vigilantism: Political History of Private Power in America, Greenwood Publishing, 1990, p.2 ) that there are times when civilization and social order require enforcement of law even when government fails , I affirm the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

The Value for the round is Justice as prescribed by the resolution. Justice is defined here by the platonic definition of giving each his due. This means that both criminal and victim must be given their due to achieve justice. Where the government cannot punish the criminal and attempt to give the victim justice, it is justifiable for others to step in to do so.

Thus the criterion for the round is the proportional allocation of punishment and reward. That means that each person deserves what they are due, which is sometimes referred to as ‘just deserts.' The resolution promotes justice because it provides all involved their just deserts.


Contention 1. As a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for criminals

When the government fails to enforce the law, vigilantism is often the only way for a criminal to have any negative consequence result from his crimes. The former police commissioner of Mumbai, India (D S Soman) agrees and is quoted in The Times of India saying: "People are not averse to taking the law into their own hands since they believe that if they do not punish the criminal, he will get off scot-free after getting bail. It indicates the failure of the government machinery in tackling the situation." Sen and Natu, March 7, 2005 "Is Vigilante Justice Justified? The Time of India.

Dr. Tom O'Connor at Austin Peay State University acknowledges this when he writes: "The vigilante is no avenger. The vigilante simply wants punishment, or just deserts.."
VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND SELF-HELP, August 2007 http://www.apsu.edu...
Program Manager of CJ and Homeland SecurityDirector, Institute for Global Security Studies Austin Peay State University Ctr. at Ft. Campbel

When the government fails to provide the criminal with his just deserts, vigilantism furthers justice for the criminal and that's why it is justified.

Contention 2. The resolution promotes justice for victims

When the government fails to enforce the law, the victim suffers a second injustice. The second injustice is the failure to recognize the first injustice and to respond appropriately to it. Professors Tripp, Bies and Aquino support this in their article "A Vigilante Model of Justice: Revenge, Reconciliation, Forgiveness, and Avoidance".
At the core of our argument is that victims want justice (Bies, 2001; Bies and Tripp, 1996). Victims want to see offenders punished, and possibly to have restored whatever was taken away from them, whether it be their money, their sense of law and order in the organization, or even their reputation (Bies and Tripp, 1996; Darley and Pittman, 2003; Hogan and Emler, 1981). If such justice can be delivered by the organization, or by the offender, then there is no rational need for the victim to seek justice through revenge.

Thomas J. Tripp, Robert J. Bies and Karl Aquino. Social Justice Research 20.1 (March 2007): p10(25).

When the government fails to provide the victim with her just deserts, vigilantism acknowledges the wrongdoing done to the victim and sets the stage for forgiveness and reconciliation. This furthers justice for all involved and that's why it is justified.

Contention 3: Used as a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for society

When there is justice for criminals and victims, there is increased justice for society as a whole. First, there is increased deterrence against crime, which provides a more safe and secure society. Safety and security are part of society's just deserts. Kelly D. Hine points out in The American University Law Review that

"Vigilante justice" fills the law enforcement void. Before the vigilante action, the probability of incurring sanctions for criminal activity was negligible. With the vigilance committee on patrol, this probability increases dramatically. By reintroducing the possibility of apprehension and punishment, the vigilante enforcer provides significant levels of deterrence to society's criminal element.

[vol. 47] 1998 VIGILANTISM REVISITED: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SELF-HELP OR WHY CAN'T DICK SHOOT HENRY FOR STEALING JANE'S TRUCK?

Second, society gets its just deserts when criminals and victims get justice.

Professors Rosenbaum and Sederburg support this conclusion when they state: "If a vigilante's actions are in fact a rational response to a failure of the established criminal justice system, if the vigilante bases his actions on an accurate perception of social need, and if he keeps the imposed sanction within socially tolerable bounds, then the vigilante has provided a social "good."

Jon Rosenbaum & Peter C. Sederburg Comparative Politics, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Jul., 1974), pp. 541-570

In a utopian world, the police would enforce all laws, but under the resolution since they are failing in this duty, vigilantism can be used to promote justice where there otherwise would be none.

Contention 4: In the absence of government enforcement, vigilantism becomes a justifiable option

Although the resolution does not require the affirmative to prove that vigilantism is the ONLY justified response when the government fails to enforce the law, there are often few other alternatives to achieve justice.

Philip Perlmutter put it well when he wrote: "In a democracy, citizens rightfully have a number of options. They can accept dangers, and do little, hoping that things will somehow improve. Second, they can defend themselves through legitimate, or illegitimate activities, hoping to bring about change. Third, they can retaliate with physical force against the oppressive environment. Last, they can emigrate - the smart but difficult option for poor or average citizens. For any human being, there is not, nor should there be, only one response, especially the one prescribed by the non-afflicted, whose sense of justice is too often contaminated by their distance from injustice. How can one say to let the police handle the problem of law and order when the police themselves admit the problem is beyond them, even with their guns, jails, and specialized training?"

Although Perlmutter discusses a democracy, citizens have even fewer choices outside a democracy. Where vigilantism is used as a last resort by groups who have considered their response, it presents the best option for citizens to achieve justice.

Philip Perlmutter "A Look at American Vigilante" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITER 1985

In fact, Kelly D. Hine says vigilantism may be the only option. "When an established governmental system for enforcing the criminal law does not exist, the only means available to protect Becarria's "repository of the public well being" is private action. Classical vigilantism on the American frontier epitomizes such private action. In the absence of an established law enforcement system, the social wealth explanation for vigilantism is straight forward. Under these circumstances, nothing but the threat of harm from the victim provides incentives for individuals to forego crime.'
snelld7

Con

"Vigilantism is not a correction to a problem, but a mere inconsistent, irrational, capricious compensation for a problem"

It is because of this that I shall negate and concur with the following.
---------------------------------------------------------

"The Value for the round is Justice as prescribed by the resolution. Justice is defined here by the platonic definition of giving each his due. This means that both criminal and victim must be given their due to achieve justice. Where the government cannot punish the criminal and attempt to give the victim justice, it is justifiable for others to step in to do so.

Thus the criterion for the round is the proportional allocation of punishment and reward. That means that each person deserves what they are due, which is sometimes referred to as ‘just deserts.' The resolution promotes justice because it provides all involved their just deserts."
=========================================================================

Justice is a highly esteemed Value. Your definition of justice is acceptable for the round. However, your VC of proportional allocation does not hold to your side of the debate. Let's break down the true meaning of the words, "proportional allocation."

Proportional - In proportion; in due degree; adapted relatively; consistency on something

Allocation- The process or procedure for allocating things

In breaking down the word you basically see that, to have this word in support of your case, you must have proportional punishment. The problem with vigilantism is that it has no proportionality. The first place it shows no proportionality is in whatever the "Vigilante" decides to do in order to get back at the criminal. Because they are not locking these people they "punish" away in prisons, it is not proportional to the other people who have broken the same law that the criminal have. The second way it is not proportional is because different vigilantes in different areas are going to punish with different ways, which shows no sign of proportionality what so ever, seeing as how the definition includes consistency.

In LD debate, you know your value exists, when your VC exists. It is true that you have justice when you have proportional allocation, however, Vigilantism has neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Contention 1. As a last resort, Vigilantism promotes justice for criminals"
=================================================

On first site, this appears ok. However it is very flawed. As I said before, Justice is only ok, if it shows proportionality, in which in the case of vigilantism it does not. By definition, vigilantism works outside of the law, meaning THEY BREAK THE LAW. What this means, is that by "punishing the criminal" they in-turn, become a criminal themselves, counterproductive would you say?

Vigilante justice is quite amusing. The idea that a murdering, thieving, anger management needing abusive citizen decides that someone else has gone too far and needs to be punished by them because they somehow feel that they are more just than the government, is morally reprehensible.

Because these people aren't going out and buying prisons to lock criminals up in, ANYTHING they do will be unconstitutional, dehumanizing, degrading, and morally wrong.

Even the fact that they're punishing criminals is wrong.
Take a look at this section of the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This is the exact problem with vigilantism. It is self-regulated, self-appointed, self-assessed, and every other thing that has to do with SELF. In the declaration of independence and in the constitution it is made clear that governments have their power over people because the people give there consent to the government and not the other way around. Nobody from birth (whether it be a king, dictator, or president) has the power to govern if someone does not afford that person that right. Because Vigilantism is the attempt of trying to govern someone without their consent, it is not only wrong, but MORALLY wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------

"Contention 3: Used as a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for society"
=========================================

Are you sure? Allowing any and everyone to step in and harm any random person at any random time because you feel that they are getting away with something […] is beneficial to society?

Failure to enforce a law is a problem with the nation/state and should be resolved within the nation/state. The people that should deal with this, is not the everyday lay-citizen that is not appointed or educated in criminal justice. It should be resolved by the representatives, council-men, senators, governors, mayors, secretaries, presidents, and other appointed officials. Allowing random citizens to enact their random bias form of justice is not a justice at all, but is an actual injustice! Vigilantism is not a correction to a problem, but a mere compensation for a problem, which is the reason I am obliged to negate the resolution.

Time and time again you refer to vigilantism as "filling a void." It is undeniable that a void is being filled, however, what we're arguing is IF THE VOID IS BEING FILLED WITH SOMETHING THAT IS JUST IN ITS ALLOCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT. And the answer I no, it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITHIN YOUR CONTENTION 4
==========================
Above in your previous arguments, you state (basically) that the resolution gives you no burden to prove that vigilante is the ONLY way of providing justice, but that it is justifiable. First off, yes you are right the resolution gives you no such burden. However, you have quoted within your fourth contention, the words:

"In fact, Kelly D. Hine says vigilantism may be the only option. When an established governmental system for enforcing the criminal law does not exist, the only means available to protect Becarria's ‘repository of the public well being' is private action."

So the resolution doesn't give you the burden, you gave it to yourself, so now you must uphold that as well.

Thank you for the topic, I'm looking forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
kulaan

Pro

My CV and VC
=========================================================================

My opponent is not looking to acheive justice. He is looking to achieve complete rehabilitation. That can always be done. As in cases like the resolution. Their is great difficulty in not achieving Justice for everyone. The opponents case just allows for "prisons" what if there is no prison? Such as in the resolution there is no government to arrest them. THe vigilante is the only way to achieve this allocation of proper reward and punishment. Without which no one gets their ‘Just Deserts'
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Contention 1. As a last resort, Vigilantism promotes justice for criminals"
=================================================

A2:If the vigilantes are allowed to avenge crime, than another will need to avenge that crime, and again and again.
1.Vigilantism is not illegal simply on principle
As Mr. Tom O'connor points out
"The "crime" of vigilantism is not expressly prohibited by law. What constitutes the "crime" in vigilante activity is the underlying crime that is committed in conjunction with vigilante activities."
VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND SELF-HELP
Last updated: Aug 20, 2007
O'Connor, T.
http://www.apsu.edu...
Dr. Tom O'Connor
Program Manager of CJ and Homeland Security
Director, Institute for Global Security Studies

Where vigilante committees are acting rationally to enforce the will of the people, there will not be sufficient public support to enforce any laws against them, so there won't be an effective competing vigilante committee that will then seek to punish the first. There won't be a cycle because the vigilante committee is supported by the public because it IS the public will, where its opposition is not.
Does the thief WANT to get caught. Does the murder want his crimes punished. Governing is always done without consent. That means we still need some form of government to fill the void left behind.
----------------------------------------------------------

"Contention 3: Used as a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for society"
=========================================

That is the problem. According to the resolution there IS no legislature, governor etc. The problem remains that the void remains. They are the best and most accurate method to achieve justice. The VICTIM and the CRIMINAL and SOCIETY need to get what is their due. Just waiting for them to do so will not work. The hole that is left behind must be filled. My opponent wishes to let it slide and just wait for it to fix itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITHIN MY CONTENTION 4
==========================
Exactly, my contention four does give me the burden. That is why I utilized it. It is THE best method. That way my opponent cannot use it as a cop out. The proof of its over all usefulness. Though the resolution does not specify it that does not mean it is not true. So there are very few other options. So although it might not be the ONLY one it is usually the BEST method.

I'm looking forward to your response.
snelld7

Con

snelld7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kulaan

Pro

Extend my arguments. My opponents lack of attacks on my concept of the "hole" left behind by the government means that you can extend it throughout the debate.
snelld7

Con

I've labeled the arguments to further clarification....
1) the value and VC arguments
2) Contention 1 arguments
3) Contention 3 arguments
4) Contention 4 arguments

First off, before i go into the contentions and previous arguments, I'd like to clarify the actual resolution. The resolution does not speak of the complete dissolution of government, but that the government fails to enforce a law. What you are trying to do, is skew what the resolution means and say that the entire government is gone so then there must be SOMEONE to enforce SOMETHING. WRONG, what the resolution is actually trying to bring forth is that the government has failed to enforce one law, so should any random citizen be allowed to enact their bias form of justice, and the answer is NO. It's not that the entire society is in anarchy so should we try to stop criminals, but more like, a petty thief or someone that a hot head citizen things is guilty of murder, gets off, so then should someone step in and do something about it.

1) Like I said before, you're speaking of complete dissolution of government, which is not the case. Little justice, is better than an injustice provided by affirmative side. Even if the negative supported inaction, it wouldn't be worse than the injustice provided by the affirmative side.

2)"Where vigilante committees are acting rationally to enforce the will of the people, there will not be sufficient public support to enforce any laws against them, so there won't be an effective competing vigilante committee that will then seek to punish the first."~~ You!

Now, the problem wit hthis sentance is the first half of it. The problem with vigilante actions isn't that it is rational, but that it's radical! Affirming the resolution allows for ANYONE to be a "crime solver." It isn't illegal because it is helpful towards making a productive society and because it's good for the people, but because of quite the opposite.

3) Resolution doesn't state that there is no government, show me where it says that. It simply states that the government failed to support a law (which meas they are trying, so then let them finish until they correct)

You aren't providing a justice or a correction, you're providing an injustice and a compensation.

4) It's very pointless for you to say it is THE BEST way, because it it were, would it be a resolution pointed out by administrators that we are debating right now? Plus, your job isn't to state why it is the best, it's to prove it!
Debate Round No. 3
kulaan

Pro

1) the value and VC arguments
2) Contention 1 arguments
3) Contention 3 arguments
4) Contention 4 arguments
OVERVIEW: My opponent still has given not only an original drop in my opponents attacks. He also has yet to prove why my oppenent IS CORRECT. If I am the only one who offers such a platform for debate. That means my opponent cannot demonstrate which value is strongest AS THEIR IS ONLY A VALUE OFFERED. He also accepts all of my stances
The resolution states when the government HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE the LAW! Not just one particular law, but law in general. The concept of law in general cannot be eliminated simply so that my opponents SOMEONE can do its supposed job. Their is a massive HOLE left behind.
1) Inaction does nothing. Literally which is better. Leaving the hole means everything and everyone who commits the crime and all the consequences there of are left behind.

2)"Where vigilante committees are acting rationally to enforce the will of the people, there will not be sufficient public support to enforce any laws against them, so there won't be an effective competing vigilante committee that will then seek to punish the first."~~ You!

They are acting RATIONALLY. The whole point is we cause a cycle. Where we have one vigilante we get more. The more there are the less RADICAL they become. Universality starts to appear and a government A LEGITIMATE ONE may someday come from this newly formed commitee. FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE NOT THE RANDOM THOGUHTS OF A FAILING GOVERNMENT.

3) Look to my overview I DO prove this.

You aren't providing a justice or a correction, you're providing an injustice and a compensation.
4) I HAVE proven it. That was the hole purpose of my last contention. IT PROVES IT in its entirety
Thank you for this debate and I look forward to your argument.
snelld7

Con

1) value/vc arguments
2)c1
3)c3
4)c4

1) The resolution is obviously not talking about the absence of the enforcement of law in general. If there was an absence of enfoorcement of law in general then the only thing left would be vigilantism. There wouldn't be any other form of anything left! There is nothing to argue if that's the case! What the resolution is more likely saying is, like i said before, what happens when a petty thief or another criminal gets away scott free with a crime; Do we enact our own form of bias judgement upon him, or do we let him get away with the crime. To think that the resolution is talking about anarchy (nothing being enforced at all) is an attempt for my opponent to skew the debate towards his side as an easy way out, but no, I will not let you.

As far as me not having a value, I don't need one. My job as the negative isn't to establish a plan as they do in policy debate. My job is to point out the flaws in the resolution and in your case as to why the resolution can't be true (to negate the resolution). It's not necessary for me to have one.

Vigilante-a person who ignores due process of law and enacts their own form of justice outside of the law in response to a perception of insufficient response

2) You state the more vigilantes there are, the less radical they become. First off, by saying this, you concede that they would initially be radical. Secondly, the only part that's true of this sentance is what I just pointed out (the fact that they are radical). The more there are, the more different judgements and opinions there will be! What you're attempting here is to make so many that they become uniform. You can't say they will establish a code or some kind of law, because if they do, they cease to be Vigilantes (they no longer would be working outside of the law). So therefore, the more there are, the more opinions you will recieve, the more radical the whole idea becomes, and if they establish a code or law between them; the more there are the less likely they'll stay vigilantes (as they'll recognize that people can't just walk around enacting anything upon anyone, and there should be a universal code that everyone should go by.)

3) No need to look through your overview, obviously I did and didn't find it. Just put into quotation marks the part that says the government isn't present.

4) Once again no you have not. You don't prove it, you site someone speculating it. If it was proven, it wouldn't have so many logical fallacies within it.
Debate Round No. 4
kulaan

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for the debate and their willing participation and persistance.
1) value/vc arguments
2)c1
3)c3
4)c4

1) Exactly, vigilantism IS the only thing left. That is the entire concept of the "hole" left by the government. Because there is no government fulfilling its duty, there must be SOMEONE to allocate the justice. In the case of the resolution, that someone is the vigilante. The vigilante then does as the government should and gives the just allocation of what is deserved. Both reward (for the victim) and Punishment for the criminal. Look to my first contention and my other three contentions as well. The whole concept is of just reward and punishment.
I understand that he does not need to hold a particular stance. I am merely indicating that since he DOES NOT offer one he accepts one. And as such it is the accepted stance and Value and Criterion for the round. Thus Justice and Proportional allocation are the value and criterion for the round.

2) The idea of "radical" does not define that they are not at once the will of the people. AT some point they may replace the government in its entire, however for the mean time they will serve as its replacement
3) The government is not present once again in "government has failed to enforce the law" The concept that THE LAW not A law, or SOME laws, indicates it is the reference to the ENTIRE ideal of universal law. the over arching LAW. ALL LAWS in general are not being enforced. Someone must enforce them
4) Someone speculates it? Well, in a way that is all WE are doing in this round is speculating. We must speculate as we are using a non existent zone of perfection so too speak. A world that does not exist. Also I do have someone. I use multiple pieces of evidence to prove and assert my point of view. As of yet, my opponent has not given any but denials of my evidence and platforms. As a result there is no other vote but for the affirmative. Thank you.
Thank you
snelld7

Con

If vigilantism is the only option left with the interpretation that you have, then where does the debate set in? THERE WOULDN'T BE ONE! For this reason I ask the many judges that read this debate, to realize taht my opponent is trying to skew information in order to give himself the upper hand. The resolution is not talking about anarchy, it is speaking of instances when the law wasn't enforced! Now speaking of enstances when the government wasn't there! I'd like to point out the fact that my opponent says "we are debating a world that doesn't exhist." Clearly he is trying to make some fairy tale world wit this resolution opposed to thinking rationally about this whole thing and applying it to everyday life.

1) Although my baby brother, little cousins, and every other 5-10 year old in america would like to disagree. Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and every other self appointed crime avenger with the last name of man, DOES NOT exist. The real life vigilantes leave citizens dehumanies, the autonomy of communities and societies undermined and disrespected, and they infringe upon citizen rights. The idea of vigilante justice is quite amusing. The idea that a murdering, thieving, anger management needing abusive citizen decides that someone else has gone too far and needs to be punished by them because they somehow feel that they are more just than the government, is morally reprehensible. What is the definition of irony again....

You speak of me not offering a value and no criterion, and then saying since I don't, then your value and VC is the only one that can be accepted. But this is false, not because I actually do offer one (Negation side doesn't need to because the burden falls on aff not neg), but because yours does not stand and is not acceptable. You might as well not have one yourself, seeing as how the don't uphld your case. If you know and realize that the NEG doesn't need a value, why did you feel it necessary to call out the fact that I didn't have one? Didn't think I was going to come back with an argument for it?

2 & 3) You are becoming quite contradictory! You are saying with number 3 that the government is NOT present and that there is a state of anarchy (confusing existance without rule or government). But then with number 2 you have stated that vigilantism will blow up and then take over the government [...] Which is true? That there is no government, or that there is? Because you do not know for sure, I'll answer for you, there is a government present. The very fact that it has failed, proves that IT IS NOT ONLY THERE, BUT THAT IT IS TRYING TO FIX THINGS ( It has failed, meaning that it has tried already and is trying)

-You have failed to justify vigilantism being an attempt to govern people without their consent (which I provided was an injustice in the quoted part of the declaration of independance that I provided above).

-You have failed to address why the democratic republic we are in deems vigilantism illegal irresponsible, unjust, and an unwarranted infringement if it benefitial.

-And you have failed to prove to me that you are debating real life opposed to the fairytale world you're speaking of.

Because of these main voting issues, I strongly urge a CON vote in today's debate.

Thank you
The resolution is negated
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bizlaw 7 years ago
bizlaw
to 4chan: If you lose to him every time with different judges you either (a) don't really believe that you lose because of pity points or (b) your lack of insight explains why you lose.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
Woah.... I'm David Snell from Central High School in Springfield, Mo
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I know i'm on the other side of this debate [...] but I love arguing lol So if I have to switch sides for the comment portion, than so be it lol
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
Would you let a rapist get away with raping your entire family? Would you allow someone who shoots your loved one in between the eyes, get away with murder?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Would you ram someone into a field and tie them up and bring them to your house if they were speeding and the police ignored it? Would you demand €100 from someone who failed to pay a parking ticket but got away with it?
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Actually, this is the national championship LD topic for our upcoming National Forensic League Championship tournament, to be hosted in June. Kids who qualified are trying to prepare. So, "they have nothing better to talk about" is inaccurate and kind of snarky for someone wants to further intelligent debate. The NFL as well as all competitive speaking programs in high schools seek to do so.

They are coming here for some help. Perhaps we can give it to them? As a debate coach, I think that's a reasonable request. I may not have time to accept this debate (I already completed one about this topic earlier), but I hope someone can if I don't! :)
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
Talking about legality is pointless; legality can never render anything ethical!!!!!
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
because they cant think of anything better to talk about.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Could anyone please explain to me why this particular topic happens to be so popular with LD-style debaters?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ldjudge 7 years ago
ldjudge
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by kulaan 7 years ago
kulaan
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by bizlaw 7 years ago
bizlaw
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
kulaansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07