Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Lannan13's RFD's for August

lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 7:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: R1 Summer Tournament: Jury Nullification
Link: http://www.debate.org...

For this debate I shall be analyzing it by argument. In regards to Con's conduct violation, I shall continue to keep his arguments valid since it would still follow the structure as it was self fixed by the participating debaters by having Con waive the final round.

Doublethink and Jurry Nullification

These arguments appear to be placed together in portions of the debate so I shall address them jointly. Pro begins by drawing the comparrison between Oceana's MoT and the current view of law as they tend to look at law through the lense a political means, but they tend to look at law enforcement as a just non-politically motivated action. Pro expands on this by showing that they silence themselves and feel bad to speak up since they trust the government which hinders the law process. Pro then sates that we need to have uninterperatable laws so there is greater fluitidty in law in order to secure objective justice which is hard to do in the status quo. Pro opens by stating that Jury Nullification is the only way the oppressed people in law are able to fight these laws. Lexus gives the example of how states changed laws and promoted segregation. Jury nullification could fix that, in theory. Pro then argues that this will remove the law's "One size fits all" situation and all people to be more fluid to help each person have a certain justice be applied to him. Con argues that anyone can be corruptive and some of the average day citizens and lawmakers can be as corrupt and vice versa. He uses the Emmitt Till case as an example as well as uses another where people were relunctant to charge a guilty police officer. Con also shows that there are other ways which laws can be vetoed and gives the examples of the President and the SCOTUS. Con argues that people can still create unjust laws and blockades the progress that would occur in this country. Pro counters by stating that we must do this as it is the people's way to counter the Doublethink in that people think law is political but the enforcement is just. Pro discards Con examples by stating that these were selective percieved injustices and not necessary to the Resolution. In regards to the Till case, Lexus argues that the police believed that the law didn't apply to Till since he was a young African-American in the South and the jury had to agree. The last part of Con's argument was discarded as a logical fallacy which means that Con's rebuttal to this argument has been negated or does not truly apply to this resolution. The Till case that Blamonkey had brought up actually flows in Lexus's favor due to the nature of the law and the oppressiveness of the state law.

This argument goes to Pro.

Jury Nullification ignores subjectivity

Blamonkey, in his first contention, opens by arguing that jury nullification ignores the executive enforcement and gives the example of Till who was a young African-American male in 1955 who was killed by 2 white men for him whistling at a young white woman and the two white men later admitted to doing so. Con argues that juries can be biased and this would harm the law and shows that they can tend to have the opposite of their intended outcome. Thus harming the legal process. Lexus counters by showing that there was a percieved injustice in the jury nullification in this instance which is brought up by Con. Pro argues that they believed the murders were in the right in that situation and there wasn't a percieved injustice brought up. Pro does agree that morality is subjective, but turns it on its head by showing this can be used to overturn unjust cases. Lexus argues that the jury is more than one person and their biases would combine to form an opinion of the court. Not one person can dettermine who's guilty/innocent. Blamonkey goes to define injustice and shows how it applies to the Till case and that of police officer cases. He then argues that this is outside doublethink. Con didn't go on to properly refute the Till case as Lexus had brought up how it was one instance of percieved injustice. Even if the case seemed unfair or outdated, the jury, in theory per Pro, could have changed the law in this case. In regards to the compass, that still goes to Pro since even though people have their own biases, the jury will have to come to some sort of collective conclusion and even if there are conflicting opinions, one will have to collectively win out.

This argument goes to Pro.

Constitutionality

Con argues that this resolution would be against the 14th amendment as, using the Till example, we could rule that some people are superior than others. He moves on to state that this isn't the job of the jury, but of the SCOTUS to do this and interepate law. He argues that the Jury isn't a body that represents everyone, but the "Jury of your piers," thus shouldn't interperate laws. He concludes his C2 by stating this will offset the balance of power. Pro clarifies the resolution is debating the ethics, not implamentation. Pro uses the example of the 2nd Amendment showing the people's offset against the government and how it protects the people. Lexus argues this works for the same as well. Con argues that this is still against the Constitution which applies regardless. The Constitution provides a Jury of your piers and when the Jury looks at Jury Nullification, the group of 12 not representing everyone does not have the best intent in mind. Con brings up a great point even if it doesn't apply in this debate as it shows the harm of having people, a select few with no diversity, dettermining law that will be highly bias is harmful to the political process of the country.

This argument goes to Con.

Fluidity in law

Con opens his argument in showing that the collective morality making law violates the rule of law, in turn, this destroys the aspect of the Social Contract. Con shows how this would devolve into a collective anarchy where people rule society by their morality and laws aren't needed. Lexus attacks the community anarchy argument as being unrealistic and gives the example of the Crime Bill in the 90's and how it hurts the blacks, thus not a universal beneficial law Con previously brought up. Pro brings up laws that no one enforces since they are nonsencial and these laws are pratically nullified since no one thinks to actually enforce them. Con states that this will protect against oppression by others in a society in the jury and brings up his examples of police officers and the Till case. Blamonkey states that affirmation would result in corruption in police officers and a chaos in society. Even though this is an interesting impact in the debate Lexus had negated it in a previous round and simply stating that this would occur nationwide and to this extreme seems exactly that, extreme.

I have to give this argument to Pro.

This was a great debate all around. I went into it not really knowing anything on the subject, so it was a nice read. This debate has to go to Pro due to Lexus not only winning the vast amount of arguments presented, but the fact that Pro won their entire Case which results in me casting a ballot in affirmation.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 8:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 8:01:01 PM, Lexus wrote:
I appreciate all of your analysis and your kind words. Thank you for the vote. :)

No problem. I just think if people put a great deal of time into a debate then they should get a vote with equal effort back.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:46:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted
Link: http://www.debate.org...

With the formatting of this debate I shall be going round by round.

Round 2

Pro begins with a Framework that is a sentence or two long that attempts to emphasize freedom in the debate. He also said blah in his framework. Don't say blah in your framework or you're going to destroy the entire thing and all of its relivency (non factor in my decission). He also admits his entire argument is spam in his first round argument. He puts emphasis on the Constitution and how we should protect it since it is the law and speech is there and hate speech is a form of speech hence protected by the Constitution. He argues that if we take away freedom we become slaves. Con begins by arguing that hate speech violates UN Declaration of Human rights Article 2 by showing how this degrades people which leads to the degredation of the Human rights. He then moves on to the US example to show that the "Seperate, but equal" case was exactly this and caused massive harm as a result. That1user weighs international law as well as national law and argues that international law outweighs national law. Con uses a Turn in Pro's case to show that hate speech encourages slavery and genocide using a quote from the 1800's and Hitler as examples. Con also gives the SCOTUS case where free speech isn't protected if it incites violence by giving the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Round 3

Fire_Wings begins to stating that the debate is about "Hate speech should be permitted" not "Always permitted." The issue with this is that he backs himself into a corner here is in his arguing on Article 2 of the UN HR he concedes that it would be a good argument if the debate was always permitted, but not permitted in general. Which means Con just has to contest Pro's scope and the argument would stand. Pro argues that Article 2 of the UN HR states that we must protect freedom and since speech is a freedom and hate speech is a speech, it should be protected. Pro then goes on to attack Con's syllogism that he brought up in the previous round. The issue with this is that all you need to do is win one point, and the entire thing would have been negated as a result. He shows that Con had never brought up P5 and after refuting the others, according to Pro, the syllogism has been negated. Pro then goes to contest that not everyone is equal. Pro discards many of Con's arguments since they are not US-central, claiming that since this is predominately a US site then it applies only to the US. Pro goes to refute Con's arguments on slavery and Hitler claiming that slavery was banned due to how wrong it was, not hate speech. Con concedes that Hitler's hate speech should be banned, but this once again goes back to the corner that I spoke of earlier. Con argues that Pro has BOP. Con goes on to list 4 reasons why/how hate speech harms the victum and why they shouldn't permit it to happen. Con brings up how hate speech is a form of bullying and shows how this can cause massive problems like drop outs and depression. He links this to a suicide harm which is one of the first impacts that have been brought up in this debate. He shows that the same thing happens at work and how this harms economic growth. Con clarifies that in this debate he is arguing that hate speech should not be permitted, hence the actual resolution, not being banned. For the Article 3 argument, Con shows that it does incite violence since it causes suicide and other harms that occur. On article 7, Con shows that this isn't the only thing that states this as he brings up the 14th Amendment as an example. He also shows that UN law applies to the US when they sign it, effectively making it US law as well.

Round 4

Pro begins by stating that bullying won't stop no matter what and teasing won't stop. He gives another example in stating that a certain name could both be bullying and might be just a nickname. Pro states that the issues at work are pointless as people should just deal with it and if they miss work well they should just get punished for not doing their job. Then on article 2, Pro states that Con conceded that some hate speech is okay, thus the resolution prevails for him, but if that's true doesn't that mean his arguments about being okay with banning some hate speech make it a concession on his part? On article 7, Pro argues that a few million people might commit suicide, gives no source for these numbers, may commit suicide in the US because of it, but most won't. Pro is conceding a HUGE impact here by being okay few a few million suicides. Pro states that since not everyone is born equally then this argument is irrelivant. Con claims that Pro's arguments are a logical fallacy since they do not lead to the proper conclusion in this debate. R3 was "wrong" and thus the syllogism of Pro's arguments are negate, per Con. Con addresses the rebuttals to his own arguments and shows that Pro didn't offer a proper rebuttal other than bullying won't go away. Con extends on the harms dropped by Pro. Con shows how Pro contradicted himself by showing that these behaviors should be punishable, hence not permitted, which means he concedes on the resolution at hand. On article 2, he shows that it is permitted under law, which isn't a concession, per Con, instead it shouldn't be permitted by the victium. On article 7, Con highlights Pro's concession on the impact calc. IN the last contention Con shows how the constitution ensures equality under law, no socially.

Conclusion

I'm going to begin by stating that the entire Hitler argument was irrelivant and was off topic from the scope of this debate and I will not be considering it in the final decission in this debate. For this debate, I look at the impact calc and there were two key aspects brought up in this debate. The first was Pro mistakenly brought up how suicide from hate speech kills 1-2 million. That might seem small compared to the US population, but that's still a ton of people. The other was the economic and other suicidal harms which I have to also gives to Con due to the inability of Pro to refute this. Con wins the debate off of these alone since Impact calc would be given more weight to Con since he was the only person who brought this up in the debate. Article 2 goes to Con, though the argument devolves from the original UN HR, that original argument goes to Con due to Pro's droppage of the argument in the debate. Pro makes several drops in the debate saying that hate speech is to be banned or punishable in certain circumstances, under the resolution, hate speech isn't to be permitted. The aspect of equality isn't based around socio-economic aspects, but under law, this argument goes to Con.

With that, Con wins the debate.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 4:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Debate: THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms
Link: http://www.debate.org...

This debate has 3 major contested arguments in it and I shall be dividing my RFD accordingly.

Violation of the Constitution

Pro brings up how a Civil Liberties group oppose the No fly-No Buy due to the violation of several Constitutional Rights such as the 2nd, 4th, and 5th. He then quotes several letters that the ACLU sent to the Senate. Pro states that due to the secrecy of the TSDB it is impossible to know why you are there and it makes you guilty until proven innocent. He then quotes an Oregon judge that ruled that No-fly list was unconstitutional. Con defaults back to the Patriot act where they are able to bypass rights of Americans so terrorists can't get around the TSDB. He then states that the SCOTUS found Title V Constitutional. He dismisses the ACLU as it is Republican associated, hence, Pro-gun and not necessarially a good source to use showing the bias of it. Con shows that Pro's same source from the Oregon case, that it went to a higher Court and ruled Constitutional. Pro shows that Title V =/= No-Fly List, per Con.

Pro states that this can be abused and begs the question of how it could be expanded to legal, gun owners. He states that the difference between the No-Fly List and Title V is that it denies the right to appear in a trail and have witnesses/testimonies. Con brings up how the argument in regards to the Court ruling was dropped. Showing how Title V was Constitutional. Con states that the abuse is outweighed by the cost security. The dropping of the Oregon case is something that is heavily impacts in this as it goes to show that the SCOTUS, the form of government that interoperates the Constitution, ruled it was Constitution, by itself gives this argument to Con. This is the highest and greatest portion of this argument here and it is won by Con.

This argument goes to Con.

TSDB is error prone.

Pro states that the DoJ states that a third of the people on the list tend to be outdated and many are mistakenly there due to the fact that they share the name with another person. To which he gives a few examples. He then states it's racist against Arabs and Muslims. Con responds that he acknowledges that there are errors, but they cannot jeopardize the safetly of everyone. Then states that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Pro counters by saying that there are several ways you can get on there which some can because people can dislike you and then sources some examples. Con responds by stating that 2009 was 7 years outdated and more terror attacks as well as increase in funding has occurred since then. Making it more effiecent. Con shows that Pro didn't show how it was due to disliking and reveals how it is actually due to survallance which gets people on it. Con does bring up a good response, though I'm quite curious as to why it waited until the final round for it. The outdated source does make things shown out of perspective, but Con has yet to actually show how it has improved. I have to give this argument to Pro on the grounds that there is a third innocent people on the list and several errors which is a huge error list on there. They might have improved, but Con hasn't shown how this has improved.

This argument goes to Pro.

Terrorism and alternative

Con begins by showing how strong the terror attacks in the US has been as well as the statistics for the US having the most amount of guns also has the highest amount of gun violence than other nations. Con acknowledges that there are some issues, but argues that the system should be reformed instead of abolished outright. He argues that the TSDB has justifiable means to the secrecy of it in order to protect people and is protected under the Patriot Act.

Pro agrees that there needs to be some restrictions, just not to the ones that Con had wanted under the scope of the resolution. Pro shows that gun violence has been decreasing in the US since the 90's and gives several Socio-economic factors as to why. Pro brings up how flawed it was and how it wouldn't curtail terror attacks and how the most recent terror attacks didn't have any No-Fly list slots. Pro proposes more of an alternative to the no-fly list by showing that we should expand background checks, training, and limit magazines. Con repeats on how the TSDB is constitutional due to the SCOTUS ruling on the Patriot act. Con concedes that crime is falling. Con then states that people all across the world are taking stronger measures against terror than crime due to the amount of society harms they cause. He then states that the US still has some of the highest gun violence in the US making it harder and harder to tackle. Con then states that some privacy would need to be infringed upon in order to access these things and get information on it. He continues that the system should be reformed instead of abolished. As for the alternative, Con states that he agrees with it, BUT it should go with the list as well. He argues Inherency here by showing how the government can do this in the status quo.

Pro begins by stating there is agreeance and if he can show that this is the less intrusive and more effective way to go about it he wins. Con counters by stating that Pro's argument is subjective and they could always get outside help which would override the case by Pro.

I have to give this argument to Pro. The reason is due to the interlinking with the effectiveness argument in the earlier portion of the debate, which Pro had highlighted the mistakes and more ineffiecencies in the plan. Though it may be constitutional, it has been shown to be ineffective.

This debate was an interesting read, but I have to give it to Pro. The debate pretty much revolved around how effective it was. Con did win the Constitutional argument, but even if it is constitutional, it doesn't mean that it's efficient. Pro won out showing how it really doesn't work and you could reform the system, but even then, it has no insurance that it would work/curtail the terror/crime wave. Even though Con did show Pro's source to be outdated, he didn't show any new evidence to how things have changed and improved. I'm forced to accept Pro's source from the DoJ on how there is a 1/3 of the people on the list that are there via mistake.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~