Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.
This one is a little too specific for my taste, and I doubt if people will care that much about it when it comes time to vote. But maybe they
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
An old classic in new wording. The way this is phrased it can be applied to all manner of situations. First blush reaction: I’ll vote in favor of it.
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
Another chestnut. I love discussing the limits of the law. I’ll vote for this. I also like the clean, terse phrasing.
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.
I know where they’re going with this one, but they haven’t gotten there yet. And I’m intrinsically wary of arguing economics. There has been a lot of data (I’ve put much of it into the Feed) about this subject, one way or the other, but I don’t think it would float in rounds. Reminds me of the old joke: “You owe me ten dollars. Because I’m a gentleman, I’ll reduce it by half.” “And because I’m also a gentleman,” the debtor responds, “I’ll reduce it by the other half.”
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Note the old negative in the affirmative trick. But a classic with lots of potential, I think. But the VCA knows I’m a sucker for anything having to do with sovereignty.
Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.
Well, no, it shouldn’t. And why don’t we just write NEG WIN on all the ballots in advance and get it over with?
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
Oh. I actually suggested this to JV (although the committee may have already been thinking about it), based on some wonderful material I had heard on a “This American Life” program. Don’t think bogus (yes, bogus) claims on autism; go plain. Measles. The effects of getting the measles from the vaccine vs getting the measles from an epidemic. Think parental rights. Obviously I like this one.
Resolved: Records of an individual’s home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
For this one we’ll have to ask Rich Edwards to print out ballots with the affirmative already marked as the winner. There is no such thing as negative presumption, but with a topic like this one, I'd go so far as to suggest there’s no such thing as a negative position. I'd be hard-pressed to support people grabbing computers without probable cause, not to mention warrants, any more than I'd be hard-pressed to support police stopping, oh, African-Americans in expensive automobiles, without probable cause and/or warrants. Me, I like my 4th amendment to hold as tight as possible, and don't think we need to renegotiate it.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Classic. Betcha it’s Finals. And betcha some yabbo defines states to include Rhode Island. (With luck, Duby will judge the round and post his reaction on Facebook.)
Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.
Now that’s an interesting subject. A little broad, but definitely possible.
So, again, a list with a couple of non-starters, but overall, pretty solid. Good work, folks.
7 comments:
1)minor typo on the first point. well ==> will.
2)On internet records, I think one could at least make a case. For starters, I would question whether "home internet records" even exist. Any transaction that takes place over the internet necessarily involves two or more locations (and it's usually closer to a dozen or so). You could argue that (not that I would necessarily buy it) in principle, internet is no different than electricity or water: it flows into and out of a home, and the city can monitor it (say, for tax auditing), or restrict it (say for drought or energy shortages). Of course the government does need a warrant to tap phone lines (haha, just kidding), and the same argument could (theoretically) apply.
You could also argue the wording is unnecessarily restrictive. If I'm monitoring suspected criminal A (with a warrant), who is e-mailing citizen B, can I only monitor those records that originate at A? or does passing through B's cables make my words viewable too? This isn't about "grabbing computers," data is much more ephemeral than that. I agree that there's a significant Aff lean, but I think it' at least arguable.
Rob,
For your first point - if it were that easy for the government to access your internet activities, then the resolution would be moot in the first place. However, it's clear that there is definitely information one could glean from a person's computer that one could not get otherwise, simply because while one could possibly access that person's records if the government already knew what sites they were visiting (and could subpoena those sites), it is very unlikely that the government would actually be aware of what sites that person was visiting in the first place.
Also, there's a difference between restricting access to the internet and actually seeing what the internet is being used for. The analogue to your argument is that the government could measure how much data was being transferred to and from a house, and could place a cap on that, but the government couldn't send the police into your house to make a detailed listing of what appliances are using that electricity.
Finally, the term "unreasonable" is what makes this such a completely aff-leaning topic. It is easy to make fair points that the government should have the right to search the records of known criminals or to adequately make their case in a criminal trial, as the government can already obtain things like search warrants for physical property. The issue is that when we allow any unreasonable searches, all of them are justified. The government can have free reign to search your internet records at will. No one would reasonably support the idea of the government entering your home and searching your property at any time, so I don't see how this is any different (in fact, it's even more important because of how relevant the internet is to modern life).
Yeah Max, you're right. Like I said, I generally agree with Aff. But I think that the fact internet records are often located outsid the home gives enough gray area to do some intersting rhetorical gymnastics. It's not just a matter of going to certain sites and finding out who went there, you could probably go to the servers of your ISP and get all the records you wanted.
But yeah, it would seem thhat virtually by definition, "unreasonable" searches wouldn't be allowed.
It seems like the only real way to do this on Neg is to create some really weird definition of unreasonable, or to somehow run a case denying that the Aff position can even exist.
Okay, first of all, I'm only a sophomore debater, so I'm really looking for advice rather than to prove you wrong. But I disagree with you saying that "a just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all its citizens" will be an automatic neg win. Obviously, every judge will be predisposed towards neg, but there are still some good neg arguments.
First off, i would make the point that the slums are breeding grounds for crime, prostitution, and diseases. I'm sure i can find a million studies proving that people w/o homes have more diseases, and when they're all crowded together they spread quicker.
Also, having a house will give citizens a better mental attitude, encouraging them to find a job rather than result to a life of crime, etc. I'll find some sort of social theory to help this out. something saying people are generally good, and will always try, etc.
Then i would pull the "all men *and women* are created equal." Its not fair for children to grow up homeless, having less advantages than kids w homes, because their parents made faulty economic choices.
I would also make an observation at the beginning stating that it says "citizens" not "residents." Meaning we don't have to provide it for EVERYONE, esp not illegal immigrants.
FEED BACK?!?
Feedback? Objectivism.
wat-
Im a bit confused. I understand objectivism to be a philosophy where things ARE as they seem. (the sky is real, the leaves really are green, etc.) I don't understand how it relates...can you please explain this to me?
wat-
or did u mean MORAL objectivism, which is, as I understand it, the theory that somet things are morally worng despite human nature. It just IS wrong and theres nothing u can do about it. But even still, i dont understand and would LOVE an explanation
Post a Comment