A public plea to Airmax regarding the ABMPosted 3 years Ago

He makes some logical points.
Forums Home > Debate.org

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

At 3/2/2017 10:12:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/1/2017 11:53:42 PM, paintballvet18 wrote:

In retrospect, I was unduly mean to you, and for that I apologize.

It's really nothing. I'm a soccer referee in Texas and I've heard much worse... :)
Forums Home > Society

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

At 3/2/2017 12:06:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/1/2017 11:53:42 PM, paintballvet18 wrote:
At 3/1/2017 10:20:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/1/2017 9:21:23 PM, paintballvet18 wrote:
I. Topic
The topic is "The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers." Because of the difficulty many debaters and judges have in understanding what, precisely, that topic means, it is worth describing what the resolution is about, so that the burdens of proof can be properly understood. Many think they understand this topic, but it is among the most widely misunderstood in the entire time I've been involved to any extent in LD debate. I expect that at least half of those judges who do vote on this debate will fail to understand what qualified immunity is.

I agree with everything insofar.

Qualified immunity is a kind of affirmative defense available to police officers who are faced with civil liability. That means that even if all the elements that are necessary for a police office to be civilly liable are established in fact, as a matter of law that officer is excused from civil liability to the extent that they may be entitled to utilize qualified immunity as a defense.

Still in agreement.

The whole problem here is that you still have failed to understand the resolution, and you have failed to provide any kind of a competent basis (read: substantive arguments) that either (a) advance the correctness of what you're asserting is the "correct" interpretation, or (b) do anything that would undermine anything I've said.

What you did is make unwarranted assertions that simply contradict what I said. That is not enough because in order to call into doubt anything that I said, you would have had to make at least some kind of an argument to support your position.

You failed to do that. You also failed to do anything other than repeat, in a less sophisticated and more pedestrian way, the exact same thing that FT more or less said. The problem is that not only are you rehashing, you're doing it badly. By "badly" I mean that you're below the mark that has been previously established by another user who, by any reasonable measure, is your intellectual superior -- and who in the same instance has already been more than adequately refuted.

Here's a pro-tip:

You are not an expert, you are absolutely incompetent with respect to this and ostensibly all other debate issues, you have failed to understand the topic, and the nature of your responses indicates to me that you have likely never even debated LD, even accounting for the fact that Texas tends to be pretty progressive in terms of what it allows its LD debaters to do (very different than another state, like Ohio, which is more conservative in their approach).

After you initially commented I reviewed your posts and profile. You are a joke, to put it as charitably as I can. Your debates are laughable, in the sense that they are on par with what I might reasonably expect a below average elementary school student to be able to put together. If those are the best you can do, then realize you have failed.

If you want to be taken seriously (and realize that you are not, in any sense, taken seriously now) you have to make your case as to why someone with whom you disagree is wrong. It's not enough to just make a baseless assertion without any kind of warrant to back it up. You failed there, as well.

But in a more critical sense, you failed to understand what LD is. LD is a debate of value; it is not an activity that lends itself to counterplans, or anything of that sort. This is an LD resolution, which I know you didn't debate because if you did then you would have at least tried to justify your own (demonstrably wrong) interpretation.

So, again: you're not only incompetent, and arrogant, but you're probably a liar. So, please... go back to losing (probably policy or PF debates) at your local (and not circuit) tournaments. You are not good enough to play on this level. You will never qualify to nationals, and frankly you probably have never even placed at a tournament that has a TOC bid. If you had, you wouldn't have failed so righteously here.

Clearly you're an entitled jerk that has no clue what progressive debate is.
PF is a pitiful joke and policy is what I did freshman year. Thanks for asking.

Yeah, that's about the response I expected. Weak.

Do you want to debate? Because I'm under the impression you're chickening out of that. (and before you come up with a, "I don't debate people with XYZ characteristics, do better loser).
Forums Home > Society

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

At 3/1/2017 10:20:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/1/2017 9:21:23 PM, paintballvet18 wrote:
I. Topic
The topic is "The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers." Because of the difficulty many debaters and judges have in understanding what, precisely, that topic means, it is worth describing what the resolution is about, so that the burdens of proof can be properly understood. Many think they understand this topic, but it is among the most widely misunderstood in the entire time I've been involved to any extent in LD debate. I expect that at least half of those judges who do vote on this debate will fail to understand what qualified immunity is.

I agree with everything insofar.

Qualified immunity is a kind of affirmative defense available to police officers who are faced with civil liability. That means that even if all the elements that are necessary for a police office to be civilly liable are established in fact, as a matter of law that officer is excused from civil liability to the extent that they may be entitled to utilize qualified immunity as a defense.

Still in agreement.

The whole problem here is that you still have failed to understand the resolution, and you have failed to provide any kind of a competent basis (read: substantive arguments) that either (a) advance the correctness of what you're asserting is the "correct" interpretation, or (b) do anything that would undermine anything I've said.

What you did is make unwarranted assertions that simply contradict what I said. That is not enough because in order to call into doubt anything that I said, you would have had to make at least some kind of an argument to support your position.

You failed to do that. You also failed to do anything other than repeat, in a less sophisticated and more pedestrian way, the exact same thing that FT more or less said. The problem is that not only are you rehashing, you're doing it badly. By "badly" I mean that you're below the mark that has been previously established by another user who, by any reasonable measure, is your intellectual superior -- and who in the same instance has already been more than adequately refuted.

Here's a pro-tip:

You are not an expert, you are absolutely incompetent with respect to this and ostensibly all other debate issues, you have failed to understand the topic, and the nature of your responses indicates to me that you have likely never even debated LD, even accounting for the fact that Texas tends to be pretty progressive in terms of what it allows its LD debaters to do (very different than another state, like Ohio, which is more conservative in their approach).

After you initially commented I reviewed your posts and profile. You are a joke, to put it as charitably as I can. Your debates are laughable, in the sense that they are on par with what I might reasonably expect a below average elementary school student to be able to put together. If those are the best you can do, then realize you have failed.

If you want to be taken seriously (and realize that you are not, in any sense, taken seriously now) you have to make your case as to why someone with whom you disagree is wrong. It's not enough to just make a baseless assertion without any kind of warrant to back it up. You failed there, as well.

But in a more critical sense, you failed to understand what LD is. LD is a debate of value; it is not an activity that lends itself to counterplans, or anything of that sort. This is an LD resolution, which I know you didn't debate because if you did then you would have at least tried to justify your own (demonstrably wrong) interpretation.

So, again: you're not only incompetent, and arrogant, but you're probably a liar. So, please... go back to losing (probably policy or PF debates) at your local (and not circuit) tournaments. You are not good enough to play on this level. You will never qualify to nationals, and frankly you probably have never even placed at a tournament that has a TOC bid. If you had, you wouldn't have failed so righteously here.

Clearly you're an entitled jerk that has no clue what progressive debate is.
PF is a pitiful joke and policy is what I did freshman year. Thanks for asking.
Forums Home > Society

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

At 2/26/2017 3:42:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/26/2017 3:18:24 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
What's it mean to limit something that's already limited? It means limiting that thing even more.

When you first were talking about this issue in a previous post which I more or less disregarded (because I thought it was stupid), as I was trying to think about how you might have reached at that conclusion, it occurred to me that this is probably how you did it. So, I responded. But, in the event that you found that response unsatisfactory, I'm going to explain this further. Because even though I still think this is absurd, I do understand at least how you reached the conclusion that you did... now, at least.

If you have a thing that is limited, and you're talking about whether or not it should be limited, then you're talking about whether it should be limited or not. You're not talking about how much it should be limited in relation to the status quo.

Examples:

YYW: "FT, you should really limit your consumption of red meat."
FT: "I'm a vegetarian."
YYW: "Excellent, you are limiting your consumption of red meat."

The implication by YYW's first line means that FT is eating red meat. Therefore YYW's reply doesn't make sense.

YYW: "FT, you should really limit the amount of unsafe sex you have."
FT: "I'm a virgin."
YYW: "Excellent, you are limiting the amount of unsafe sex you have."

Same comment as above.

YYW: "FT, you should really limit the amount of animal abuse you engage in."
FT:" "I only get my dog high every now and then, and that isn't really abuse."
YYW: "I agree. It seems you are limiting the amount of animal abuse you engage in."

Same comment as above.

YYW: "FT, people are debating whether the US should limit qualified immunity."
FT: "Qualified immunity is already limited."
YYW: "Indeed it is! We need not debate the issue further."
FT: "Wut?"
Hayd: "No, we shouldn't limit qualified immunity."
FT: "That doesn't make sense."
Hayd: "Yeah, I know, talking about limiting something that is already limited is kind of a poor way to word the resolution."
FT: "Wasn't YYW talking about limiting qualified immunity more?"
Hayd: "No, because if he was going to talk about that, he would have used language that referred to degrees to which it should be limited."
FT: "I notice YYW didn't do that."
YYW: "Correct. I know it's a stupid way to word the resolution too, but lay people who were too dumb to get into law school were the ones who wrote it."
FT: "They should have been more clear."
YYW: "I agree."

Except your reasoning is as flawed as above. You fool.
Forums Home > Society

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

At 2/25/2017 8:51:10 PM, YYW wrote:
III. Arguments

PRO: PRO's framework is that countries ought to do what is in the best interest of their citizens. While this is a fine framework, his examples that he lists which precede his framework, have no relationship to the framework he announced. The justification for his framework, however, has no relationship to advancing his burden to show that qualified immunity ought to be limited, so this doesn't matter. PRO's "plan" however, does not even approach advancing his burden of proof. PRO's plan was to limit qualified immunity (perhaps) in a particular way. But, that was not what the resolution was about, because the resolution did not refer to defending any particular way that qualified immunity should be limited. Rather, PRO's sole burden was to argue whether, in general, qualified immunity should be limited at all. By implication, PRO has misunderstood on a fundamental level his burden of proof.

On the contrary. This is a perfectly decent affirmative plan that runs topicality arguments. It's the Con's job to refute this now.

PRO has four arguments: (A) "catch 22;" (B) transparency as it relates to (1) lawsuits, and (2) discovery; (C) abuse as it relates to (1) "near absolute defenses" and (2) "encouragement;" and (D) some notion of "legitimacy."

With respect to (A) PRO argues "[t]he catch-22 is clear: if a right isn"t established, courts won"t rule on it, which prevents it from being established," which his plan "solves" for " by forcing courts to make rulings on the constitutionality of officers' conduct and on the presence of a given right, breaking the loop." This argument is non-topical because it does not address whether qualified immunity should be limited in general, but rather whether qualified immunity should be changed to accommodate PRO's proposal with respect to the particular way that qualified immunity is limited in the status quo. This argument has no impact on the resolution.

Again, I disagree. Catch-22 argument directly relates to Harlow v. Fitzgerald clause and has everything to do with the resolution.

With respect to (B) PRO argues that " lawsuits become an esp. potent tool in motivating watchdogs and officials to investigate claims of misconduct," but has no evidence that law suits increase transparency. PRO's sole warrant is that in the (limited) status quo, complaints against the police are often mishandled. PRO concludes that his plan will make it more likely that the police will face trial for credible accusations of misconduct. This argument is relevant to the resolution, but only insofar as it refers to limited qualified immunity in general, and not PRO's specific plan to limit qualified immunity. PRO's subpoint 2 simply reiterates the same point as subpoint 1.

So, I can now see that YYW's only gripe against the Pro case is that it's plan has nothing to do with the resolution, which isn't true... So...

With respect to (C) PRO cites a common example of how a police raid takes place in the context of a private home, and then attempts to claim that as a result qualified immunity is a near absolute defense. PRO is referring to the status quo of qualified immunity, and not whether in general qualified immunity should be limited. More specifically, PRO's argument suggests that qualified immunity should be limited more than it already is and not that it should be limited in general, and thus is non-topical.

So which is it YYW? Status quo limitations or even more limitations? Make up your mind buddy.

With respect to (D) PRO argues "By making it easier for lawsuits to go to trial and for bad cops to be held accountable, my plan will contribute to greater community trust in the aforesaid organizations." Reading this in the light most favorable to PRO, to the extent that this argument implies that limiting qualified immunity in general, he advances his BOP. However, the specific conclusion, once more, regards PRO's plan and not the resolution at issue. Thus, to that extent, the argument is non-topical.

I again disagree. Plan meets resolution requirements, therefore is fine.

CON's arguments more properly address the resolution at hand. CON argues (A) that "Limiting qualified immunity results in taxpayers paying for police brutality," and cites examples of how taxpayers pay the price of limiting qualified immunity to warrant his claim, and as such concluded that "The basics of justice dictate that levying an undeserved punishment is unjust. Thus, limiting qualified immunity is a gross violation to the value of justice and must be negated." This argument directly addresses the resolution by citing an outcome which CON's evidence indicates is bad, as a reason NOT to limit qualified immunity.

I agree.

Next, CON argues "In the world that I defend"unlimited qualified immunity"there is no way for police officers to be sued for damages if they qualify for immunity. The police officers still face criminal charges, but there is no compensation for victims or their families. Thus I propose compensating victims via private charities." This is more of a proposed alternative to compensate victims of police brutality rather than an argument for unlimited qualified immunity, because the fact that there are other means to compensate victims of police brutality have no relationship to the resolution unless CON establishes that these "other means" are BETTER than the method made possible by limiting qualified immunity. PRO furnishes such a link by saying that there are fewer harms to that option than in the status quo (i.e. " My statistic on taxpayers paying $1.4 billion regards police officers that did not qualify for immunity. The only victim compensation that private charities would have to undertake to maintain my plan would be those that Pro seeks to allow to sue for damages.").

Best answer to this is a topicality argument by Pro that says that counter plan doesn't meet the resolution because private charities are not the "United States".
Continued below.
Forums Home > Society

RFD: Bsh1 v. Hayd (Qualified Immunity)Posted 3 years Ago

I. Topic
The topic is "The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers." Because of the difficulty many debaters and judges have in understanding what, precisely, that topic means, it is worth describing what the resolution is about, so that the burdens of proof can be properly understood. Many think they understand this topic, but it is among the most widely misunderstood in the entire time I've been involved to any extent in LD debate. I expect that at least half of those judges who do vote on this debate will fail to understand what qualified immunity is.

I agree with everything insofar.

Qualified immunity is a kind of affirmative defense available to police officers who are faced with civil liability. That means that even if all the elements that are necessary for a police office to be civilly liable are established in fact, as a matter of law that officer is excused from civil liability to the extent that they may be entitled to utilize qualified immunity as a defense.

Still in agreement.

That said, if qualified immunity is LIMITED, that means that qualified immunity is NOT an absolute defense. If something is not an absolute defense, then there are circumstances in which qualified immunity will not be available to police officers who would otherwise face civil liability. Said another way, to the extent that qualified immunity is limited, police officers may be sued in civil courts of law. (Note: qualified immunity has many applications beyond simply conferring immunity on police officers to civil liability, but any mention of those is beyond the scope of this resolution because the resolution refers only to qualified immunity as it relates to police officers.)

I also agree. The limitation comes from the clearly established clause coming from Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

Risk of civil liability means, in the event that the above does not make that clear, that a person can be sued by someone else. However, just because a person is civilly liable does not mean that they are personally liable for their actions. This matters in the context of this debate, because most municipalities allow police officers to indemnify . Indemnification, or indemnity refer to imputed liability; meaning that even though an individual may have done something that renders them civilly liable to someone else, the specific individual who was engaged in the wrongdoing is not going to personally pay for any verdict entered against him. In the context of this debate, indemnification is going to refer to municipalities, states, or other apparatuses of government.

I also agree with this part.

To explain these concepts in terms of an example. Suppose that I am a Chicago cop and whiteflame is a misbehaving southside miscreant who has attracted my attention. For whatever reason, in my encounter with whiteflame I occasion myself to brutalize him tremendously and unnecessarily. I beat him into a pulp, and he sustains great injuries as a result and becomes liable for thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills. Whiteflame, as he is recovering from his injuries, retains the counsel of a personal injury attorney (a/k/a ambulance chaser). Whiteflame consults with this ambulance chaser, and relays to him that I have caused whiteflame great injuries. Whiteflame's ambulance chaser attorney is named Airmax.

Airmax then files a complaint at law against me, and the city of Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois (appropriate federal jurisdiction), and brings a claim called a 1983 suit. A 1983 suit refers to a law suit to recover for, among other things, personal injuries as a result of violations of a person's civil rights by someone acting under color of state law. In that I am a police officer in this example, I am acting under color of state law by, in my capacity as a police officer, going about my day to day affairs in general at my job, and in beating the pulp out of Whiteflame in particular.

Now, if qualified immunity is an ABSOLUTE defense in the Northern District of Illinois, which is to say that it is NOT LIMITED, then even though whiteflame and his ambulance chaser attorney may be able to establish the elements of liability as would otherwise entitle whiteflame to recover a great amount of money, then whiteflame's recovery to which he would otherwise be entitled will be barred by my claiming that affirmative defense.

Sure. This is where the affirmative can now argue for the implementations for limits for Qualified Immunity.

Alternatively, if qualified immunity is LIMITED, which is to say that it is NOT ABSOLUTE, then whiteflame may have a chance to sue me, to the extent that I am not entitled to still claim qualified immunity as an affirmative defense -- as would likely be the case here because my beating whiteflame in to a pulp would violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (here, his right to bodily integrity and right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force) of which a reasonable person would have known (as invariably I would have known). This means that the verdict can be entered against me. BUT, who shall pay? Usually, it's going to be the City of Chicago who will be indemnified for the liability as such.

See my last comment above. Aff can also argue for more limitations.

In this case explained above, I have engaged in police brutality and whiteflame is the victim of my police brutality. This debate, thus, is about whether this form of compensating whiteflame and those like him is something we as a society should permit. Said another way, should we as a society rectify incidences of police brutality through the courts, or by some other means? Should we even permit victims of police brutality to be compensated in any form at all? Those are the issues that populate the range of considerations which this resolution regards. There are compelling arguments for both sides, especially in that most police brutality settlements and verdicts are paid for by taxpayers.

(As an aside, the phrase "ambulance chaser" should not be interpreted to refer to personal injury attorneys in a derogatory sense. That is a fine and entirely meritorious species of legal practice. Personal injury attorneys do the public at large a tremendous service, and their bad reputation is in general unfair. While the "in a wreck need a check" (e.g., Glen Learner, prominent shitbag attorney in Chicago) personal injury attorneys generally populate the lowest rung of legal practice, many personal injury attorneys do work that makes the difference between those who are hurt being able to provide for their families and losing their homes. Obviously, that sort of law is much broader than 1983 type civil rights litigation. However, most civil rights attorneys who sue the police are pretty worthless. They are the "ugly child" of personal injury attorneys.)

II. Burdens

The resolution reads "The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers." This is obviously a normative resolution and thus the burdens are equal. In that the burdens are equal, PRO must argue that the US ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. Thus, PRO is arguing for a form of police brutality victim compensation in courts of law, rather than by any other means. Likewise, CON must argue that qualified immunity should NOT be limited, meaning that it should be absolute. Thus, CON must argue either that police brutality victims should go uncompensated, or the means by which police brutality victims should be compensated if they are compensated at all, should NOT be through the courts.

I agree. Con can also counterplan.

Only arguments that regard the resolution can be considered; this means that any argument beyond the scope of the resolution must necessarily be discounted because no argument beyond the scope of the resolution advances any indivi
Forums Home > Society

Questions to Formal DebatersPosted 3 years Ago

At 2/25/2017 5:41:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
These are a few questions to formal debaters (current or former) in real life.

Which format of debate do you prefer?
Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate (in that order)
Why do you prefer that format of debate?
I prefer head on debate rather then Congressional. Talking fast, making arguments, and thinking on your feet are the best parts of debates.
What are your thoughts on British parliamentary debate?
It's pretty boring. Similar in idea to American Congressional debate.
Which style of debate do you think is most similar, in terms of cases, to DDO?
Really?
Forums Home > Debate.org

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.