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

LD Topic Ideas

OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 9:53:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lincoln-Doulgas, or something else?

Anyway, as Con, you can argue that granting non-citizen that has been accused of terrorism due process would undermine safety of the nation.

For Pro, you can argue the resolution states "ACCUSED of terrorism," thus that person may not necessary have partaken in a terrorist action.
The common argument for Pro though would be it excludes morality and undermines justice/fairness, as by negation, we are going against our own constitution.
-
Not my actual thoughts on the subject, btw, just trying to help...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 10:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).

This is actually false. The Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to noncitizens; James Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights amendments) actually wrote about this issue.
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 10:26:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 10:09:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).

This is actually false. The Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to noncitizens; James Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights amendments) actually wrote about this issue.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments of the constution of the United States; the 14th and 15th amendments of the constution make up the right of due process.

And, regardless, the Framer's TRUE intentions will always be up to perspective.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 10:42:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 10:09:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).

This is actually false. The Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to noncitizens; James Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights amendments) actually wrote about this issue.

As was expressed by another member, the "intentions" are subjective, and have no real weight on what the constitution actually covers.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:26:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 10:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:09:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).

This is actually false. The Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to noncitizens; James Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights amendments) actually wrote about this issue.

As was expressed by another member, the "intentions" are subjective, and have no real weight on what the constitution actually covers.

I don't see how it's really that subjective considering that he wrote about it.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu...

Actually, his interpretation of the Constitution does have real weight since he was one of the primary authors and he knew what the laws were supposed to entail.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:27:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 10:26:09 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:09:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/2/2012 10:00:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/2/2012 9:42:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

I need some ideas for Con on this, and help with Pro would be nice too. First debate team topic ever.....man I'm lost.

Well, there are a number of ideas and it really depends on your audience. The first and most obvious answer would be that in the Preamble of the Constitution it says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution does not cover anyone outside of US citizens. Then that forces the Pro to take a 100% moral stance (where they cannot argue contract agreement) and that should be easy enough to argue against (if Pro holds BOP, then they must prove their moral position and as such prove objective morals).

This is actually false. The Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to noncitizens; James Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights amendments) actually wrote about this issue.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments of the constution of the United States; the 14th and 15th amendments of the constution make up the right of due process.

Due process is actually covered in the 5th Amendment, which is part of the bill of rights.

http://www.usconstitution.net...
And, regardless, the Framer's TRUE intentions will always be up to perspective.

Not really, since he explicitly argued that noncitizens should be granted Constitutional protections when they are tried.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 11:17:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The definitions and laws of warfare warfare were developed when warfare followed the model of armies of soldiers in uniform facing each other on a battlefield. The uniform identified who was on what side, o identifying an enemy combatant was clear. Enemy combatants were never extended Constitutional rights. About 500,000 captured German soldiers were held in the US during WWII, with none given a trial in civilian courts.

The Supreme Court ruled in WWII that a US citizen who received training by an enemy overseas had de facto renounced citizenship and was subject to the rules governing non-citizen enemy combatants.

The present problem derives from terrorist being enemy combatants, but not being obviously identified by uniforms or citizenship. The rule for GITMO, worked out after Supreme Court challenges, was that a military tribunal could do the classification of whether a person is an enemy combatant or not, but that one level of appeal to civilian court regarding the classification is provided. Once classified as an enemy combatant, full Constitutional rights are denied.

A full grant of constitutional rights to all non-citizens would mean that it would be illegal to shoot at enemy soldiers without first a trial, complete with presentation of forensic evidence. That would make defense of the United States impossible, but the Constitution gives explicit authority to wage war. The authority to wage war clearly implies that not every non-citizen has a right to trial.

There is a problem with borderline cases. The President has been ordering drone strikes to take out alleged enemies on a list. We cannot give each alleged enemy a trial, because that list of who is identified is a legitimate military secret. Also, the slow US legal system would give enemy leaders protection for many years. Therefore blanket grant of Constitutional rights to borderline cases of enemy combatants also would leave the US incapable of defense.

One resolution is to have classification done by military tribunal with civilian court overview. That well short of full Constructional overview, but it does put a check on the President's ability to make an arbitrary choice for a hit list. But the President's authority as Commander in Chief allows killing enemies, so maybe even that is not required.

The Con case is that warfare is clearly authorized by the Constitution and warfare does not allow extending Constitutional rights to non-citizens.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 11:22:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 11:17:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The definitions and laws of warfare warfare were developed when warfare followed the model of armies of soldiers in uniform facing each other on a battlefield. The uniform identified who was on what side, o identifying an enemy combatant was clear. Enemy combatants were never extended Constitutional rights. About 500,000 captured German soldiers were held in the US during WWII, with none given a trial in civilian courts.

The Supreme Court ruled in WWII that a US citizen who received training by an enemy overseas had de facto renounced citizenship and was subject to the rules governing non-citizen enemy combatants.

The present problem derives from terrorist being enemy combatants, but not being obviously identified by uniforms or citizenship. The rule for GITMO, worked out after Supreme Court challenges, was that a military tribunal could do the classification of whether a person is an enemy combatant or not, but that one level of appeal to civilian court regarding the classification is provided. Once classified as an enemy combatant, full Constitutional rights are denied.

A full grant of constitutional rights to all non-citizens would mean that it would be illegal to shoot at enemy soldiers without first a trial, complete with presentation of forensic evidence. That would make defense of the United States impossible, but the Constitution gives explicit authority to wage war. The authority to wage war clearly implies that not every non-citizen has a right to trial.

There is a problem with borderline cases. The President has been ordering drone strikes to take out alleged enemies on a list. We cannot give each alleged enemy a trial, because that list of who is identified is a legitimate military secret. Also, the slow US legal system would give enemy leaders protection for many years. Therefore blanket grant of Constitutional rights to borderline cases of enemy combatants also would leave the US incapable of defense.

One resolution is to have classification done by military tribunal with civilian court overview. That well short of full Constructional overview, but it does put a check on the President's ability to make an arbitrary choice for a hit list. But the President's authority as Commander in Chief allows killing enemies, so maybe even that is not required.

The Con case is that warfare is clearly authorized by the Constitution and warfare does not allow extending Constitutional rights to non-citizens.

I am fairly certain that this topic is discussing the treatment of subdued non-citizens who have not yet been identified as terrorists and is not discussing individuals who are active threats to the United States.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 11:40:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 11:22:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
...treatment of subdued non-citizens who have not yet been identified as terrorists and is not discussing individuals who are active threats to the United States.

That doesn't make sense to me. If they have been captured, there is procedure in place for determining whether or not they are terrorists. If someone has been identified as a terrorist, then they are by definition an active threat. That's what terrorists do.

It seems to me more likely to be about the right of the President to pick names off a kill list.

Do they give other clues about what the resolution means?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 2:47:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 11:40:32 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/4/2012 11:22:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
...treatment of subdued non-citizens who have not yet been identified as terrorists and is not discussing individuals who are active threats to the United States.

That doesn't make sense to me. If they have been captured, there is procedure in place for determining whether or not they are terrorists. If someone has been identified as a terrorist, then they are by definition an active threat. That's what terrorists do.

It seems to me more likely to be about the right of the President to pick names off a kill list.

Do they give other clues about what the resolution means?

This is the resolution:

Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

These people are captured foreigners who are being placed on trial for terrorism. There is no indication that they are currently active threats. The resolution is questioning how these individuals should be treated by the court system.