homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:48 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 1:14 am
Posts: 52
Home Schooled: Yes
I was just thinking and had an idea of an argument that can be on community judges. One would argue Constitutionality like topicality. For example:

1AC: Increase funding for Superfund

1NC
Constitutionality on the commerce clause
A. Interp - Because affirmative team is operating within the federal government, they must take Constitutional boundaries into consideration.
B. Violation - Superfund = intrastate issue and Constitution only gives power of interstate issue
C. Standards - Real world - The way policy making works is to first look at the Constitution.
D. Voters - 1. Apriori - In the USFG Constitutionality is an apriori issue that comes before the net benefits of the plan. Acting as the USFG, aff must be within Constitutional authority.

Is this a viable idea or a completely ridiculous one? :)
Aaron


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:59 pm
Posts: 1653
Home Schooled: No
Since the Superfund is the status quo and hasn't been declared unconstitutional, the aff is acting within constitutional boundaries.

_________________
Wraith Leader wrote:
"...if you want to tell a story, that's great, but if I wanted to hear fluffy oratory I would be watching C-SPAN."


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
JustMe wrote:
Since the Superfund is the status quo and hasn't been declared unconstitutional, the aff is acting within constitutional boundaries.

Aaaaand I think that's all that needs to be said about that. x)

Not spam: ...no, it's spam.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 1300
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
aaronbunda wrote:
Is this a viable idea or a completely ridiculous one? :)


Completely ridiculous.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:34 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
You'd need to have a pretty thoroughly articulated reason for why the constitution procedural should be a priori. For procedurals like topicality, the reasons to make them a priori are fairness and education. Is debating the merits of an unconstitutional policy unfair or detrimental to education?

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:29 am
Posts: 553
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: $HOME (Arizona)
I think that if you really wanted to do this, then you would have to argue it actually as topicality, and say that the actor for superfund is not really the USFG because anything outside of the Constitution is not the USFG. It's just something else without a name that calls itself the USFG. ;) It would be a really confusing argument, and I, personally, would just run it as a DA.

_________________
~Philip Monk

Parental Rights!


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:13 am 
Offline
Avatar Queen
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 4382
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: here.
It all depends on the judge.

_________________
Hold on to the things that keep you young
Nothing lasts forever, gone is gone


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Posts: 480
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Tallahassee, FL
The argument that all programs in the status quo today are constitutional, while false, does convince most judges. It is often forgotten that the Supreme Court doesn't challenge everything that is passed. That and most of the judges don't have a proper understanding of the Constitution. (Not to de-rail any conversation.)

If you are going to do stuff with the Constitution, you had better know it inside out, be ready to challenge the supreme court's opinion and prove why your opinion of the Constitution is better. It is lots of fun though, especially when you hit teams who have no idea what article 1 section 8 is or even what the Constitution is. Good times all around.

_________________
Timothy

Drew wrote:
GumboSoup wrote:
Dads ftw.
Tim is your dad?

http://twitch.tv/dutchwaffles
Usually streaming around 8 PM EST weeknights and unpredictably on weekends. Come on by and say hi sometime!


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:59 pm
Posts: 1653
Home Schooled: No
Timbalistea wrote:
The argument that all programs in the status quo today are constitutional, while false, does convince most judges. It is often forgotten that the Supreme Court doesn't challenge everything that is passed.


The Supreme Court doesn't challenge anything that is passed. The people, you and me, are the watchdogs of the Constitution and Congress. It is up to us to challenge what is passed by bringing suit in the courts. That is part of that pesky little representative government issue. If the people don't challenge, then the law is constitutional. If the people challenge and lose, the law is constitutional.


Timbalistea wrote:
That and most of the judges don't have a proper understanding of the Constitution. (Not to de-rail any conversation.)


I think it more likely that they don't have your understanding of the constitution, not that they don't have a proper understanding of it.

Timbalistea wrote:
If you are going to do stuff with the Constitution, you had better know it inside out, be ready to challenge the supreme court's opinion and prove why your opinion of the Constitution is better.


That is funny...the Supreme Court isn't expressing opinion. They are applying years of legal knowledge and decisions. They are applying many decades of study and immersion in that particular field of expertise. If we discount the time spent learning a basic background in history (not law, just history), we maybe - and generously - discount the first 14 years of life. That leaves, at most for our league, 4 years of in-depth study of law, government, and history. Under most assumptions though, one would hope that you are also gaining basic knowledge in science, math, English, and some form of the arts. Basically, you are advocating comparing the knowledge and legal experience that a high school student has to the decades of knowledge and legal experience that the justices have.

_________________
Wraith Leader wrote:
"...if you want to tell a story, that's great, but if I wanted to hear fluffy oratory I would be watching C-SPAN."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Posts: 480
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Tallahassee, FL
JustMe wrote:
I think it more likely that they don't have your understanding of the constitution, not that they don't have a proper understanding of it.

That is funny...the Supreme Court isn't expressing opinion. They are applying years of legal knowledge and decisions. They are applying many decades of study and immersion in that particular field of expertise. If we discount the time spent learning a basic background in history (not law, just history), we maybe - and generously - discount the first 14 years of life. That leaves, at most for our league, 4 years of in-depth study of law, government, and history. Under most assumptions though, one would hope that you are also gaining basic knowledge in science, math, English, and some form of the arts. Basically, you are advocating comparing the knowledge and legal experience that a high school student has to the decades of knowledge and legal experience that the justices have.


That is true. However, I do honestly believe that I have a more proper understanding of the Constitution then a Supreme Court justice that interprets the interstate commerce clause as giving the federal government the power to stop the production of a product (production, mind you, not transportation) because they believe it to be distasteful.

So because someone has spent decades in the study of law makes their opinion of the Constitution any more valid than mine? No one can "neutrally" interpret the Constitution. They may be more informed then I am, but if I can clearly lay out why we should follow my interpretation in a debate round (and if I can point to others who thought the same, even better) and link better advantages to it, why should it not be valued? Like I said though, you really have to know the Constitution. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is especially good towards that end.

_________________
Timothy

Drew wrote:
GumboSoup wrote:
Dads ftw.
Tim is your dad?

http://twitch.tv/dutchwaffles
Usually streaming around 8 PM EST weeknights and unpredictably on weekends. Come on by and say hi sometime!


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:59 pm
Posts: 1653
Home Schooled: No
Timbalistea wrote:

That is true. However, I do honestly believe that I have a more proper understanding of the Constitution then a Supreme Court justice that interprets the interstate commerce clause as giving the federal government the power to stop the production of a product (production, mind you, not transportation) because they believe it to be distasteful.


That is your opinion based upon your 18 years of life, education, and work experience. Your sentence sounds like an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Timbalistea wrote:
So because someone has spent decades in the study of law makes their opinion of the Constitution any more valid than mine?


Yes. First off, the law isn't some surface issue. It requires a lot of reading and studying not only in the basics of law, but in court cases, common law, precedents, the history and evolution of our law, etc. It requires examining the law from many different philosophies, ideas, thoughts, backgrounds. As you say in your post, your knowledge comes from the Heritage Foundation - hardly a diverse course of study in law.

Timbalistea wrote:
No one can "neutrally" interpret the Constitution.


Agreed. A neutral interpretation without the experience and knowledge behind it would almost certainly be an issue. That is why the justices don't have a "neutral" opinion and that is why we seek out justices with a variety of experiences, backgrounds, ideologies, and educations.

Timbalistea wrote:
They may be more informed then I am, but if I can clearly lay out why we should follow my interpretation in a debate round (and if I can point to others who thought the same, even better) and link better advantages to it, why should it not be valued?


It is easy to clearly lay out a really bad idea. It can even be easy to link advantages to that bad idea. Look to the foundation of the idea. If it isn't based upon fact or reality - of how things really are - then there are no advantages, it is just opinion, and if we base decisions upon that unstable foundation, we are making poor decisions. The constitutional debating in NCFCA I generally see is what I think leads us to having a rather poor understanding of the constitution and of our government and how it really works. It's an interpretation we want to see, but maybe not the interpretation that others in our representative government want to see. It leads to a rather skewed world view.

_________________
Wraith Leader wrote:
"...if you want to tell a story, that's great, but if I wanted to hear fluffy oratory I would be watching C-SPAN."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
Trying to win a debate by arguing you know better than the SCOTUS is usually not going to be a winner, especially if you are talking about the commerce clause.

Also we have another thread plus lots of archive stuff but IMO your plan simply does not have to be constitutional, then on top of that to say it must be constitutional according to a 17 yr old high school debater I think stretches credulity.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:51 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
Quote:
Completely ridiculous.


That's not to say completely ridiculous procedurals can't win.

I wouldn't run it as a procedural, I'd use it as a Constitution K. The link is that they've advocated for something the federal government isn't authorized to do and blah blah blah. As a procedural it doesn't work. Maybe as a K.

Or (radical idea) just go straight up on neg.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
IrishMex Rebel wrote:

I wouldn't run it as a procedural, I'd use it as a Constitution K. The link is that they've advocated for something the federal government isn't authorized to do and blah blah blah. As a procedural it doesn't work. Maybe as a K.


This. Run it as a K, with the link basically being the fact that the first thing the government does do is determine constitutionality. Aff totally disregards that. Hence the Kritik.

IrishMex Rebel wrote:

Or (radical idea) just go straight up on neg.


But that's just not as fun. :P

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm
Posts: 340
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Manhattan KS (Region V)
I wouldn't K them straight out for violating the constitution cause the aff will just bring up examples like how the emancipation proclamation was unconstitutional yet no body complains about it (I wonder why...). However, IMHO it could actually work if run right with a little strategy. I'd run constitutionality violation in the 1NC, run it as procedural, solvency, DA, or just straight out "yo judge, aff iz no constitutional, ya", if the aff doesn't address it in the 1AC then label it as a dropped argument in the 1NR, make it an independent voter if the aff addresses it again and make it a-priori if they don't. If however the aff responds by saying "oh but that's not unique people do it all the time" or "impacts please" then K them for pragmatism , kritiking them for upholding the mindset that the physical tangible advantages (as in, oil that keeps our consumerism going for a few more years… :P ) are better than the moral intangible ones (upholding rule of law whether or not you agree with it). You could just call it “Rule of Law” kritiking the mindset that you can disregard laws whenever you think it might benefit you to do so, like Oliver Wendell Holmes “bad man” mentality (always being ready to disobey law if it is to his advantage and if he can get away with it.) then offer an alt of deontology and just run stuff from an LD aff from last year as your shell. It would of course get fun if the aff counter Ked the neg for idealism, but it ought to be winnable for the neg ;)

_________________
Alius Iudex Alius Dies, Sola Deo Gloria


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:51 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
JBWilson wrote:
the moral intangible ones (upholding rule of law whether or not you agree with it)
Yeah, that's where the counter-K comes in, or at least refutation that can dismantle the K. Obeying the law as a person is one thing; critically evaluating the usefulness of a system from an inside perspective is another.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm
Posts: 340
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Manhattan KS (Region V)
Quote:
Obeying the law as a person is one thing; critically evaluating the usefulness of a system from an inside perspective is another.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, the point is that if the aff were to say such a thing as "there's no impact to constitutional violations" then they are advocating that the rule of law can be disregarded whenever a person thinks they can get better temporal results by doing so, and any LD debater from last year that's worth their salt should be able to beat that mindset fairly easily.

_________________
Alius Iudex Alius Dies, Sola Deo Gloria


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:04 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Fair enough. The "I don't care about the Constitution" mindset is kritikable. But as soon as the affirmative puts the burden of support on the negative -- "The negative team must support their argument that the Constitution itself is important enough to be a reason to discard a potentially beneficial change" -- the tables are turned.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm
Posts: 340
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Manhattan KS (Region V)
Possibly, but you could still link them to valuing physical (cash/comfort/welbeing/etc) over immaterial (rule of law/justice/liberty/whatever), and have a fun round of it :) (yes I've done both LD and TP and enjoy LD, what of it? it helps ;) ) of course it can be argued back and forth (as it was all of last year), and whether the link stuck or not could depend on the circumstances and the caliber of the debaters involved, but it would make for some fun clash and would by no means be a losing argument.

_________________
Alius Iudex Alius Dies, Sola Deo Gloria


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:19 am
Posts: 744
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: University of Dallas, formerly Region 4
FRANK wrote:
aaronbunda wrote:
Is this a viable idea or a completely ridiculous one? :)


Completely ridiculous.

Doing it on Superfund would be, but the idea that constitutionality should be a priori is very legit (yes, I know you hate constitutionality Frank, get over it ;) ).

_________________
Alex Macdonald

University of Dallas

Buy COG!


Openness is a value not a project


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited