Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Criminal Justice+Public Health=?

idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 2:38:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, I was looking at arguments for the Negative side of the November/ December LD topic on drug abuse, and I was wondering if you guys thought the combining of criminal justice and public health was stupid? Or risky? I was thinking about using it, but I'm a bit afraid that it's really easy to take down.

It seems like the Affirmative has the upper-hand in the debate. Does anyone have good statistics, cards, or advice for the Negative side? What about anything that was particularly strong for the Affirmative? I'd appreciate any help.

Any suggestions? Thanks bunches! (:

- Idkmybffbill
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 2:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From 11 rounds of judging, 7 neg rounds won.

Some common neg arguments:
It was the abusers choice to take the drug in the first place.
The term illegal is dealing with law, and when the law is broken, its a matter of the criminal justice system
You can be court ordered to rehab/treatment. Its good to note that Jail isn't the only option when going through the criminal justice system. Some aff cases dealt purely with jail statistics.

Well, I did see somebody run a critique from the negative side. From the negative you can always say that it shouldn't be handled by public health or the criminal justice system. What exactly is your argument for combining the systems? How would you defend it? and what would your value/vc be?
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 2:45:07 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
From 11 rounds of judging, 7 neg rounds won.

Some common neg arguments:
It was the abusers choice to take the drug in the first place.
The term illegal is dealing with law, and when the law is broken, its a matter of the criminal justice system
You can be court ordered to rehab/treatment. Its good to note that Jail isn't the only option when going through the criminal justice system. Some aff cases dealt purely with jail statistics.

Well, I did see somebody run a critique from the negative side. From the negative you can always say that it shouldn't be handled by public health or the criminal justice system. What exactly is your argument for combining the systems? How would you defend it? and what would your value/vc be?

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:18:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?

How are you defining public health? and justice? and is upholding the law the best way to achieve justice?
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:26:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:18:33 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?

How are you defining public health? and justice? and is upholding the law the best way to achieve justice?

"Public health" is the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society. (C.-E. A. Winslow, "The Untilled Fields of Public Health," Science, n.s. 51 (1920), p. 23)

Defined by the Merriam Webster 2006 Dictionary, justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

In this debate, upholding the law is the best way to achieve justice because it provides offenders with the punishment they rightfully deserve while still helping them to get rid of their addiction.

Also, I was working on Affirmative as well. My value is societal welfare. My value criterion was going to be harm reduction, but then again the Negative can easily attack that by saying that harm reduction promotes drug use, increasing harm. What would be a good refutation to that? Or what would be an effective value criterion for a case built on the ineffectiveness of criminal justice, the fact that drug abuse and addiction are diseases, and that public health is the only way to treat drug abusers.
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:18:33 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?

How are you defining public health? and justice? and is upholding the law the best way to achieve justice?

Oh, and also, as a judge, how do you feel about debaters spreading?
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:43:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:26:50 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:18:33 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?

How are you defining public health? and justice? and is upholding the law the best way to achieve justice?

"Public health" is the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society. (C.-E. A. Winslow, "The Untilled Fields of Public Health," Science, n.s. 51 (1920), p. 23)

Defined by the Merriam Webster 2006 Dictionary, justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

In this debate, upholding the law is the best way to achieve justice because it provides offenders with the punishment they rightfully deserve while still helping them to get rid of their addiction.

Also, I was working on Affirmative as well. My value is societal welfare. My value criterion was going to be harm reduction, but then again the Negative can easily attack that by saying that harm reduction promotes drug use, increasing harm. What would be a good refutation to that? Or what would be an effective value criterion for a case built on the ineffectiveness of criminal justice, the fact that drug abuse and addiction are diseases, and that public health is the only way to treat drug abusers.

What does a drug treatment program in a jail have to do with public health by your definition?

As for affirmative, you can also just use minimization of drug abuse for the criterion. Your opponent can't just say that harm reduction promotes drug use without providing warrants. How would you warrant that rebuttal?

Spreading as in giving a ton of arguments so your opponent misses some? Well it can be annoying. A lot of judges (especially who were previous debaters) like to flow the round. I found it difficult to keep track of people who used too many arguments. If you're not careful, your opponent can group similar arguments too. As long as the arguments are coherent, and separate (but still connect to the value premise/criterion) then it shouldn't be an issue. Every judge is different.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:53:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:43:22 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:26:50 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:18:33 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:01:58 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Thanks, those are some really strong attacks! Well, my argument for combining the systems includes statistics about drug treatment programs within jails and prisons that have actually proven to be very effective. I would defend it by saying that the statistics show the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because it deters drug use, causes people to desire a cure for their addiction, and helps citizens while maintaining the law. My value is justice, and my value criterion is upholding the law.

Do you think that would fare in a debate? Because all of the fellow debaters from my school have said that they wouldn't try it, but I personally think that the contention would be pretty hard to take down. I don't know. What do you guys think?

How are you defining public health? and justice? and is upholding the law the best way to achieve justice?

"Public health" is the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society. (C.-E. A. Winslow, "The Untilled Fields of Public Health," Science, n.s. 51 (1920), p. 23)

Defined by the Merriam Webster 2006 Dictionary, justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

In this debate, upholding the law is the best way to achieve justice because it provides offenders with the punishment they rightfully deserve while still helping them to get rid of their addiction.

Also, I was working on Affirmative as well. My value is societal welfare. My value criterion was going to be harm reduction, but then again the Negative can easily attack that by saying that harm reduction promotes drug use, increasing harm. What would be a good refutation to that? Or what would be an effective value criterion for a case built on the ineffectiveness of criminal justice, the fact that drug abuse and addiction are diseases, and that public health is the only way to treat drug abusers.

What does a drug treatment program in a jail have to do with public health by your definition?

As for affirmative, you can also just use minimization of drug abuse for the criterion. Your opponent can't just say that harm reduction promotes drug use without providing warrants. How would you warrant that rebuttal?

Spreading as in giving a ton of arguments so your opponent misses some? Well it can be annoying. A lot of judges (especially who were previous debaters) like to flow the round. I found it difficult to keep track of people who used too many arguments. If you're not careful, your opponent can group similar arguments too. As long as the arguments are coherent, and separate (but still connect to the value premise/criterion) then it shouldn't be an issue. Every judge is different.

Well, I was thinking that because drug treatment programs within jails treat abuse as a disease, they would be considered as a matter of public health because my definition defines public health as "the science and art of preventing disease..." That's why I'm afraid that the argument would be risky because it does combine both public health and criminal justice.

I think I'm going to use the minimization of drug abuse criterion because I feel that I could better defend it. I'm not really sure how I would be able to respond to the harm reduction attack if my opponent did provide a warrant.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to need to spread in order to finish my case within the time limit, but I'm just afraid of losing speaker points because of it. As long as my words are clear and enunciated, do you think I'll be okay?
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 4:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:53:52 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Well, I was thinking that because drug treatment programs within jails treat abuse as a disease, they would be considered as a matter of public health because my definition defines public health as "the science and art of preventing disease..." That's why I'm afraid that the argument would be risky because it does combine both public health and criminal justice.

I think I'm going to use the minimization of drug abuse criterion because I feel that I could better defend it. I'm not really sure how I would be able to respond to the harm reduction attack if my opponent did provide a warrant.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to need to spread in order to finish my case within the time limit, but I'm just afraid of losing speaker points because of it. As long as my words are clear and enunciated, do you think I'll be okay?

Your definition also says: through the organized efforts and informed choices of society. Is a drug treatment program in a jail a community effort? also remember that the affirmative has the burden to prove public health is better with no criminal justice involved, but there is no reciprocal burden. Neg can also bring in coercion (as can aff, if the aff proves coercion is inherently bad).

The minimization of drug abuse was a common criterion, but its basically what the resolution is asking for.

Speaker points are arbitrary numbers. Its a matter of preference of the judge. I usually base speaker points off of 1) Are they speaking clearly 2) Are they speaking at a reasonable speed 3) Are they being too aggressive in their speech.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
idkmybffbill
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 4:38:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 4:13:49 PM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 12/9/2010 3:53:52 PM, idkmybffbill wrote:

Well, I was thinking that because drug treatment programs within jails treat abuse as a disease, they would be considered as a matter of public health because my definition defines public health as "the science and art of preventing disease..." That's why I'm afraid that the argument would be risky because it does combine both public health and criminal justice.

I think I'm going to use the minimization of drug abuse criterion because I feel that I could better defend it. I'm not really sure how I would be able to respond to the harm reduction attack if my opponent did provide a warrant.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to need to spread in order to finish my case within the time limit, but I'm just afraid of losing speaker points because of it. As long as my words are clear and enunciated, do you think I'll be okay?

Your definition also says: through the organized efforts and informed choices of society. Is a drug treatment program in a jail a community effort? also remember that the affirmative has the burden to prove public health is better with no criminal justice involved, but there is no reciprocal burden. Neg can also bring in coercion (as can aff, if the aff proves coercion is inherently bad).

The minimization of drug abuse was a common criterion, but its basically what the resolution is asking for.

Speaker points are arbitrary numbers. Its a matter of preference of the judge. I usually base speaker points off of 1) Are they speaking clearly 2) Are they speaking at a reasonable speed 3) Are they being too aggressive in their speech.

Thank you so much! You've been really helpful, and I really appreciate it. You're great! (:
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 7:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Isn't this topic over though?

The balanced neg is common, but still strong. Its nice if you can bring up coercive rehabilitation programs and drug courts.
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 10:36:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 7:45:23 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Isn't this topic over though?

The balanced neg is common, but still strong. Its nice if you can bring up coercive rehabilitation programs and drug courts.

No. LD topics last two months. This topic will be over at the end of this month.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt