tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post2010126597050225237..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: value and criterion pairs for the vigilantism resolutionJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-80475960717020426662009-05-05T12:54:00.000-07:002009-05-05T12:54:00.000-07:00"Hi Jim,
I'm confused as to the link between pres..."Hi Jim,<br /><br />I'm confused as to the link between preserving individual autonomy and justice. I know autonomy is like free will, but how is it a necessary route to justice?"<br />----------------<br />Let's divide the people into two groups: the government and the civlians.<br />The government has failed to enforce justice by not enforcing the law.<br />That means there's only the other option: to have civilians do that.<br />Since the only option other than government is to have the civilians do it, it also means the autonomy is a necessary route to justice in this scenario since the ability of civilians to do this with only their own consensus is part of autonomy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77882387735260238082009-04-16T19:40:00.000-07:002009-04-16T19:40:00.000-07:00Hi Jim,
I'm confused as to the link between pres...Hi Jim,<br /><br />I'm confused as to the link between preserving individual autonomy and justice. I know autonomy is like free will, but how is it a necessary route to justice?Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-48355601603935172692009-03-29T19:32:00.000-07:002009-03-29T19:32:00.000-07:00sorry, one more question.if a vigilante breaks a l...sorry, one more question.<BR/>if a vigilante breaks a law to achieve his form of justice, then wouldn't this be wrong under the categorical imperative? i only see how the categorical imperative works for the neg, not the aff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91196597553563513062009-03-29T13:50:00.000-07:002009-03-29T13:50:00.000-07:00This seems to be a problem alot of people I have t...This seems to be a problem alot of people I have talked to are having and one I see with a Social Contract/Autonomy Aff<BR/><BR/>under both cases the only way for Vigilantism to be justified is if the government fails.(Social contract theory says we give up some of our freedoms under a government. so only without a government can we do as we wish.) But without a government there is no vigilantism. vigilantism requires law, so in a state of nature without laws then there is no vigilantism.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-55417901704601437022009-03-29T00:08:00.000-07:002009-03-29T00:08:00.000-07:00There's two things I don't understand right now:1....There's two things I don't understand right now:<BR/>1. the social contract as a criterion. my understanding of this is that when the gov fails to enforce laws it becomes illegitimate and the people no longer have an obligation to abide by the laws and have the right to seek justice on their own. but wouldn't this mean that vigilantism can't really exist because there are no real laws for the vigilantes to enforce?<BR/>2. autonomy as a criterion. how do i show that preserving autonomy achieves justice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91276178478562150432009-03-24T15:06:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:06:00.000-07:00Here's a modern conception of the rule of law, ano...Here's a <A HREF="http://usacac.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/reflectionsfromfront/archive/2009/03/13/the-rule-of-law-two-approaches.aspx" REL="nofollow">modern conception of the rule of law,</A> <B>anonymous</B>.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-74391957191003373352009-03-24T13:56:00.000-07:002009-03-24T13:56:00.000-07:00Jim,this is my first year in debate (switched in)a...Jim,<BR/>this is my first year in debate (switched in)and i was just wondering if you could explain the Rule of Law to me? ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76859045901738929182009-03-18T21:29:00.000-07:002009-03-18T21:29:00.000-07:00You could refute rule of law by showing examples w...You could refute rule of law by showing examples where the law is not necessarily just, and therefore should not be obeyed blindly. I mean, bring up slavery and challenge your opponent to say the rule of law should be followed in that instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-90965629085481616042009-03-18T17:33:00.000-07:002009-03-18T17:33:00.000-07:00I was actually wondering how one is going to REFUT...I was actually wondering how one is going to REFUTE the rule of law criterion. I expect many to use it yet I cannot come up with any way to refute it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-12267692433754971952009-03-17T10:50:00.000-07:002009-03-17T10:50:00.000-07:00thanks! The cycle of violence idea helps a lot. Bu...thanks! The cycle of violence idea helps a lot. But looking at my other contentions (protecting rights, vigilantism's lack of restraint on power/checks and balances) it seems I'm leaning towards making my criterion justice. Could you give me any advice on how to include the cycle of violence into a case with justice as the criterion? Could I argue that vigilantism violates rights AND that it is likely to lead to anarchy in the same case? Should I stick to Rule of Law or does Justice seem like a smarter choice? If I stick to Rule of Law, is it possible to successfully link it to the protection of human rights?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-26937787705015170112009-03-16T21:33:00.000-07:002009-03-16T21:33:00.000-07:00Khepera, incapacitation is the prevention of furth...<B>Khepera</B>, incapacitation is the prevention of further crime by someone who has committed a crime; it's similar to deterrence, except after the fact.<BR/><BR/><B>Eutopia</B>, there's a good argument to be made that vigilantism leads to a cycle of violence. ("Cycle of violence" should be <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=vigilantism+%22cycle+of+violence%22" REL="nofollow">your search phrase.</A>)<BR/><BR/>For Kant, go to Joe Nusz's "<A HREF="http://theldfiles.com" REL="nofollow">The LD Files</A>." He has a good essay on Kant over there.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-6523822403977968902009-03-16T20:09:00.000-07:002009-03-16T20:09:00.000-07:00Hi Jim,I was vaguely basing my Neg case on the [V:...Hi Jim,<BR/><BR/>I was vaguely basing my Neg case on the [V: Societal Welfare; C: The Rule of Law] pair. For one of my contentions, I was thinking of saying something along the lines of "Even imperfect government is the best form of societal rule known to humankind. (Since vigilantism leads to anarchy)" Any ideas/suggestions on how I could back this up convincingly?<BR/><BR/>Also, do you have any ideas as to how I might squeeze a little bit of Kant in my argument? Something tells me he could be of considerable help but I can't manage to find a spot to wedge in a few of his ideas. Or am I totally off-target with that? (It's my first year debating and I'm a bit clueless ^^;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-16338548707583757862009-03-11T19:34:00.000-07:002009-03-11T19:34:00.000-07:00How can vigilantism uphold incapacitation?How can vigilantism uphold incapacitation?Dale92https://www.blogger.com/profile/14767515308148218001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-20582746217949225302009-03-11T18:59:00.000-07:002009-03-11T18:59:00.000-07:00An Aff...V: Justice/Saftey VC Ethical Egoism (Obje...An Aff...<BR/><BR/>V: Justice/Saftey <BR/><BR/>VC Ethical Egoism (Objectivism is a good example, Nietzsche can be used well) <BR/><BR/>Thesis: A Free Market approach to Vigilantism. <BR/><BR/>1. Vigilantism will never get out of hand due to people always fearing for their own security, and thus they cannot go to extremes(Like Adam Smiths Invisible hand)<BR/><BR/>2. Vigilantism is Short lived and will lead to a new government<BR/>-Vigilantism is merely a way to keep order during the transitional phrase into a reformed government. Because of everyones egoistical urge to be safe they will find that they are best protected in a government(can even warrant the new government will be a democracy if you wish) <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>AFF:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Vigilantism is always justified morally in a state without laws. It is infact justified in a state with laws, only the state, being the supreme power(hobbes warrant) checked this freedom and declared it unjustified. When the government has failed to enforce the law it sacrifices its supremacy and therefore its restrictions on vigilantism fall.(again rough)<BR/><BR/>------------------------------------<BR/>Neg Perhaps?<BR/><BR/>If we assume a drop off point into vigilantism, say a sudden decree that vigilantism was now justified(really simple little argument, just say that aff is really almost making a decree that this is justified) who would be the first to act? Here is the answer, The Mob, Gangs etc... These organizations would love to dictate their own "laws" and are already organized and already have weapons.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-38743716818268284952009-03-11T18:36:00.000-07:002009-03-11T18:36:00.000-07:00How is this for a Neg?V: JusticeVC: Rawls Original...How is this for a Neg?<BR/><BR/>V: Justice<BR/>VC: Rawls Original Position<BR/><BR/>Thesis: Under the Original Position Justice must be decided by the whole community, thus when a Vigilante takes the law into his hands he denies the original position. (rough, but I think workable)Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-16669604669010884722009-03-05T19:46:00.000-08:002009-03-05T19:46:00.000-08:00In toying with my Aff, I'm wanting to run the idea...In toying with my Aff, I'm wanting to run the idea that when a government is failing, it must be reformed, per social contract, but while that process is taking place, someone had get the job done. Basically, if we sit around and wait for the goverment to get its act together and working the way it should, numerous crimes will go unpunished. While vigilantism does restrict rights such as due process rights, overall it is protecting more rights by taking care of the criminals and letting them know that there will be consequences for their actions. Maybe something with Maslow's Hierachy of Needs? Need to feel safe, so if the government isn't providing for that, someone must do it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-83757529076816621672009-03-05T17:28:00.000-08:002009-03-05T17:28:00.000-08:00"Nitin, I don't think you should use anarchy as a ..."Nitin, I don't think you should use anarchy as a value. Perhaps make governmental legitimacy your value and your criterion the PREVENTION of anarchy. That may work better."<BR/><BR/>Alright but explain to me the link between the two, i can't really see it<BR/><BR/>Also for my neg case this is what i am thinking about,<BR/><BR/>V: Justice<BR/>VC: Bias<BR/><BR/>Basically since all vigilantism must involve some bias towards or against an issue. Therefore justice can never be attained through vigilantism, so it is not justified.<BR/><BR/>This one is pretty sketchy and even i don't think it makes much senseUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14726424411575309016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-80066470824993503202009-03-04T19:14:00.000-08:002009-03-04T19:14:00.000-08:00What about using Societal Welfare as an AFF value ...What about using Societal Welfare as an AFF value upheld by Social Order (maintaining the status quo)? The AFF could argue that vigilantes by seeking to carry out unenforced laws are benefiting society by maintaining the status quo and preventing anarchy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-61561174413461609982009-03-04T17:34:00.000-08:002009-03-04T17:34:00.000-08:00Nitin, I don't think you should use anarchy as a v...Nitin, I don't think you should use anarchy as a value. Perhaps make governmental legitimacy your value and your criterion the PREVENTION of anarchy. That may work better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-56765995851468492592009-03-03T19:47:00.000-08:002009-03-03T19:47:00.000-08:00here is an idea for an aff case, what do you guys ...here is an idea for an aff case, what do you guys think the weaknesses are. <BR/><BR/>V: Anarchy<BR/>VC: Government Legitimacy<BR/><BR/>Basically since the gov. has failed to uphold the law it is no longer a legitimate entity, therefore there is no governing institution and that mean there is a state of nature or anarchy, and since in an anarchy each is out for his own, vigilantism is justified since each man can interpret the law for himself and take action<BR/><BR/>I know it might have some holes but it is late and i need this done by friday.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14726424411575309016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-2699628752668353272009-03-03T16:56:00.000-08:002009-03-03T16:56:00.000-08:00I kinda want to use justice as a value and respect...I kinda want to use justice as a value and respect for human worth as a VC. How would I warrant this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-60877459210777150872009-02-28T19:55:00.000-08:002009-02-28T19:55:00.000-08:00"V: JusticeCr: Hart's Theory"Is that H.L.A harts P..."V: Justice<BR/>Cr: Hart's Theory"<BR/><BR/>Is that H.L.A harts Positivism? Hmmm...<BR/><BR/>I wrote a John Austin positivism Aff, I wonder how Hart would advance thatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-40067929659915963122009-02-28T07:09:00.000-08:002009-02-28T07:09:00.000-08:00SO. a few thought on the topic. I'm having trouble...SO. a few thought on the topic. I'm having trouble making my case. <BR/>VP: MOrality- (it is by far the best value since it is resolutional)<BR/><BR/>VC: Kant's Categorical Imperative<BR/><BR/>1: Retributive justice (the guilty ought to be punished)<BR/><BR/>2: Protect natural rights: (people ought to protect the natural rights of others?)<BR/><BR/>the trouble is making the link between the contention and the VC. Basiclly, does anyone have advice on how to make the claim that "retributive justice meets the C.I. because it's maxim is so and so and clearly that can be both universalized and willed?) Any advice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-65425726786144696212009-02-27T16:25:00.000-08:002009-02-27T16:25:00.000-08:00COuld u now use Justice and use the Rule of Law as...COuld u now use Justice and use the Rule of Law as an affirmative case saying that no one is above the law and so the rule of law says we must see that this person is punished from the way the law see fits and therefore are doing justice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77071722155153312492009-02-27T09:45:00.000-08:002009-02-27T09:45:00.000-08:00Anon, I don't think so. As Jim has posted, there a...Anon, I don't think so. As Jim has posted, there are several cases where vigilantism in the absence of the laws helps reconstruct a new, reformed social contract. In this way, the aff doesn't have to defend anarchy (unless she really wants to.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com