Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Legality Tournament

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:43:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone want to do a new tournament? Though there's a few going around, this one'd be a long time one. The system works (I haven't got all the chinks yet) as if you are an international lawyer: you get facts, you get a client (state or individual) and you have to defend/prosecute. The client you are for will be one of your own choosing, but it shall be from a list of preselected possibilities. The system works as follows:

16 people sign up.
You get 4 cases, each done twice in the first round (then 2 cases done twice, then one case done twice, then a final case for the final round and 3rd v 4th place). You choose (or clamber for) a client to defend. You then have to arrange a time to do the debate, but it must start within 2 weeks of both sides being chosen, and a minimum of 3 days (meaning 3 =< x < 14 days).

The cases in question shall be either famous ones of the past, or new ones of the present. The cases shall be a combination of US Supreme Court, ECHR, and possibly (though unlikely) constitutional cases of other countries. The debates are on the grounds of legal law, not what the law *should* be - that is, not what the common law should be. Case law and common law can equally be taken into account.

The voting system itself shall be different. The most convincing argument shall be the same, of course. However, sources shall be replaced with precedence/case law & federal law - so citing definitions is not worth "source", while citing, say, the Employment Act would be. Further, spelling and grammar shall be replaced with jargon - the Margin of Appreciation would be an important factor.

The point is to try and diverge away from the common tack of debates that seem to occur, debates on centrally one-issue debates like "gay marriage should be illegal" and attempt some more interesting debates that are more relevant, important, circumstantial and interesting.

Thus, if anyone wants to put their name on the list to try this tournament out, and see how well it goes, please say so, and join now!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:43:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Anyone want to do a new tournament? Though there's a few going around, this one'd be a long time one. The system works (I haven't got all the chinks yet) as if you are an international lawyer: you get facts, you get a client (state or individual) and you have to defend/prosecute. The client you are for will be one of your own choosing, but it shall be from a list of preselected possibilities. The system works as follows:

16 people sign up.
You get 4 cases, each done twice in the first round (then 2 cases done twice, then one case done twice, then a final case for the final round and 3rd v 4th place). You choose (or clamber for) a client to defend. You then have to arrange a time to do the debate, but it must start within 2 weeks of both sides being chosen, and a minimum of 3 days (meaning 3 =< x < 14 days).

The cases in question shall be either famous ones of the past, or new ones of the present. The cases shall be a combination of US Supreme Court, ECHR, and possibly (though unlikely) constitutional cases of other countries. The debates are on the grounds of legal law, not what the law *should* be - that is, not what the common law should be. Case law and common law can equally be taken into account.

The voting system itself shall be different. The most convincing argument shall be the same, of course. However, sources shall be replaced with precedence/case law & federal law - so citing definitions is not worth "source", while citing, say, the Employment Act would be. Further, spelling and grammar shall be replaced with jargon - the Margin of Appreciation would be an important factor.

The point is to try and diverge away from the common tack of debates that seem to occur, debates on centrally one-issue debates like "gay marriage should be illegal" and attempt some more interesting debates that are more relevant, important, circumstantial and interesting.

Thus, if anyone wants to put their name on the list to try this tournament out, and see how well it goes, please say so, and join now!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

I like the idea, conceptually but there will be considerable difficulty involved in homogenizing the legal traditions of various countries, unless the impetus of legal arguments will more involve the thematic overtures rather than details and minutia. (Unless we are going to forgo raising contradictions from international sources.)

That being said, if the case involved an international issue (like drug smuggling or international shipping) it may be more plausible to argue from the diverse array of legal sources you articulated.

BUT, before I signed up, I would want to know what I was getting into (meaning that I would want to see what "case" I would be arguing).

Btw, would this theoretically take place in a "court" of some country or some imagined land of fantasy law where DDO has sole jurisdiction?
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On thinking about this more and more, I've decided that the judicial system will consist of "in regards to the arguments presented, only the arguments presented, and nothing but the arguments presented, which side to you think is correct" approach. This means not "which side do you think is correct", nor "this side had an easier argument but the other guy was more coercing", but simply in regards to the arguments, who was correct.

This would work in the same way a court does. The voters of which who decide who goes through in the next round and I decide who goes through, with a large number of people needing to read through and vote.

The point of not having "who is correct" ruled out is quite evident: it's just a noobish way to decide. The idea behind the latter exclusion is a bit more specific to explain, though. The point is, lawyers who take up these cases are ones who think they can win. And so if this lawyer thinks he can win, then it is a debatable issue. I'm also excluding debate resolutions which are obviously unfair to a particular side, like Brown v Georgia, if the debate is really old, or equivalent. The actual debates will be more like B. v Belgium, or other recent topics. I may simply exclude all non-ECHR debates, simply to add simplicity and further because the ECHR court proceeding information is a lot easier to recieve.

Further, the cases will be ones where witnesses are next to pointless. It won't be murder trials, but constitutional ones, in effect.

And finally, regards to YW's point on homogenising the laws of nations, this is taken into account by the ECHR: it is known as the margin of appreciation which I mentioned before, ironically. The law of the ECHR is very transparent and easy to access, so it is a great source to use.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
nerdykiller
Posts: 856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:58:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:43:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Anyone want to do a new tournament? Though there's a few going around, this one'd be a long time one. The system works (I haven't got all the chinks yet) as if you are an international lawyer: you get facts, you get a client (state or individual) and you have to defend/prosecute. The client you are for will be one of your own choosing, but it shall be from a list of preselected possibilities. The system works as follows:

16 people sign up.
You get 4 cases, each done twice in the first round (then 2 cases done twice, then one case done twice, then a final case for the final round and 3rd v 4th place). You choose (or clamber for) a client to defend. You then have to arrange a time to do the debate, but it must start within 2 weeks of both sides being chosen, and a minimum of 3 days (meaning 3 =< x < 14 days).

The cases in question shall be either famous ones of the past, or new ones of the present. The cases shall be a combination of US Supreme Court, ECHR, and possibly (though unlikely) constitutional cases of other countries. The debates are on the grounds of legal law, not what the law *should* be - that is, not what the common law should be. Case law and common law can equally be taken into account.

The voting system itself shall be different. The most convincing argument shall be the same, of course. However, sources shall be replaced with precedence/case law & federal law - so citing definitions is not worth "source", while citing, say, the Employment Act would be. Further, spelling and grammar shall be replaced with jargon - the Margin of Appreciation would be an important factor.

The point is to try and diverge away from the common tack of debates that seem to occur, debates on centrally one-issue debates like "gay marriage should be illegal" and attempt some more interesting debates that are more relevant, important, circumstantial and interesting.

Thus, if anyone wants to put their name on the list to try this tournament out, and see how well it goes, please say so, and join now!

1. Nerdykiller
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

I would love to participate, but it will take a lot of time.
Can we finish the tournament before the summer ends.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nerdykiller says
Will this end before summer?

I imagine that it will end near the end of summer, yes. Maybe slightly past then if you get to the final.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
nerdykiller
Posts: 856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:09:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:04:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Nerdykiller says
Will this end before summer?

I imagine that it will end near the end of summer, yes. Maybe slightly past then if you get to the final.

I really like the idea that the tournament will be incorporating court system into it.
BUMP
Lets give the idea a try!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Give it a bit, see if, when more people get online, it gains popularity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:46:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please give us case names, so we know what might be in this. Like a sampling.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:49:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:46:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Please give us case names, so we know what might be in this. Like a sampling.

B. v Belgium, Miranda v Arizona, etc.

I'd reccomend looking up B. v Belgium on the ECHR. The amount of info available is astronomical.

By the way, I forgot to mention this, but case law has to be from before the case in question.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.law.syr.edu...

This is an older case: the amount of information you get is massive.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:56:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:49:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:46:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Please give us case names, so we know what might be in this. Like a sampling.

B. v Belgium, Miranda v Arizona, etc.

I'd reccomend looking up B. v Belgium on the ECHR. The amount of info available is astronomical.

By the way, I forgot to mention this, but case law has to be from before the case in question.

So we act like the different lawyers?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:56:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:49:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:46:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Please give us case names, so we know what might be in this. Like a sampling.

B. v Belgium, Miranda v Arizona, etc.

I'd reccomend looking up B. v Belgium on the ECHR. The amount of info available is astronomical.

By the way, I forgot to mention this, but case law has to be from before the case in question.

So we act like the different lawyers?

Yus, but in debate format.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
nerdykiller
Posts: 856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So we would be "lawyers" either on the AERTS or BELGIUM side and argue.
If we go by the format you provided on the link, I might need help XD
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:19:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 4:10:16 PM, nerdykiller wrote:
So we would be "lawyers" either on the AERTS or BELGIUM side and argue.
If we go by the format you provided on the link, I might need help XD

We'd go by normal debating format, otherwise it gets awkward... :D

I mean the source provided will be the easiest way to access information on the case in question. Once I state the case, I will be hands-off entirely.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
cheesedingo1
Posts: 695
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 3:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Nerdykiller
2. Larztheloser
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.Cheesedingo1
14.
15.
16.

I am studying law and that is hopefully what I will major in after high school, so this would be a great start. I look forward to this.
My name is Cheesedingo1. I am a dingo. Made of cheese. My favorite number is one. BOOM.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:38:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 3:06:31 AM, cheesedingo1 wrote:
1. Nerdykiller
2. Larztheloser
3. Wallstreetatheist
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.Cheesedingo1
14.
15.
16.

I am studying law and that is hopefully what I will major in after high school, so this would be a great start. I look forward to this.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:21:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 4:38:26 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/17/2012 3:06:31 AM, cheesedingo1 wrote:
1. Nerdykiller
2. Larztheloser
3. Wallstreetatheist
4. Cheesedingo1
5. Cirrk :D
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
ishallannoyyo
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 4:37:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi, I'd like to enter in this tournament.

Not sure if you would want to, but I think that one of the most famous legal cases in history was whether or not those responsible for the Dresden firebombing during WWII should be prosecuted as war criminals. I was thinking that using this as a case would be fun and interesting.

Thanks.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 4:38:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Roe v. Wade XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ishallannoyyo
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:43:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That asian comedian is hilarious. For those who don't know, here is the punch line:

On my American citizenship test, I saw this question.
"What was Roe vs. Wade?"
My response:
"Two ways of getting into the US."

"Somebody didn't take a bite out of this peach when it was ripe!"