tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post3325469344581487459..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: sample affirmative cases for the hate crime enhancement resolutionJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-79028287820316607742008-04-15T15:36:00.000-07:002008-04-15T15:36:00.000-07:00One way it could relate is that motive is the diff...One way it could relate is that motive is the difference between a hate crime and a regular crime. Motive is much more heavily weighed in a hate crime. What you are supposed to be arguing is that motive is an unstable factor because it cannot be proved. Thus, you are not treating hate criminals equally under the law as you would treat other felons, by using such a subjective criteria to determine your punishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-36777082505950241712008-04-13T16:54:00.000-07:002008-04-13T16:54:00.000-07:00I'm probably just being thick, but could someone p...I'm probably just being thick, but could someone please explain why motive being hard to prove relates to equal protection under the law? At first I thought it was that it would give the judge too much power, but that kinda applies to the negative realm also?<BR/>I don't know, I'm just confused ^^;;Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-49600037470702244582008-04-03T05:51:00.000-07:002008-04-03T05:51:00.000-07:00I am also running a subpoint on motive in the aff ...I am also running a subpoint on motive in the aff case and was wondering if anyone had found some good evidence for the standpoint that motives are impossible to know.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15040064974434923620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-23564713561800344892008-03-10T17:53:00.000-07:002008-03-10T17:53:00.000-07:00thanks for the reply Jim.thanks for the reply Jim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91288814583131376262008-03-10T16:19:00.000-07:002008-03-10T16:19:00.000-07:00Anonymous, it's the Social Contract criterion.<B>Anonymous</B>, it's the Social Contract criterion.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52609988099026189462008-03-10T14:57:00.000-07:002008-03-10T14:57:00.000-07:00For the second case, what would be a good way to s...For the second case, what would be a good way to say "government is established to protect the rights of its citizens" except more in the form of a value criterion (1-3 words).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1488187172756208882008-03-10T12:01:00.000-07:002008-03-10T12:01:00.000-07:00you probably could pull that on some opponents alt...you probably could pull that on some opponents although I really wouldn't recommend it. <BR/>But the problem with that argument is the neg can just say we are debating about the concept of HCE not the application. If they run that and the judge buys it (which some actually will believe it or not)then you've conceded a major point.<BR/>But if you really do want to run that, I would write really good blocks on why we need to look at the effects of the application of HCE. (ie its set in a real like ex. or whatever)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32209843069108216702008-03-09T21:20:00.000-07:002008-03-09T21:20:00.000-07:00I'm starting to wonder if, with the 1st Aff, it'd ...I'm starting to wonder if, with the 1st Aff, it'd even be possible to agree that hate crimes are indeed worse than non-hate crimes, but that all the flaws in the system of HCE (broad definitions, unjust application...) prevents it from being just, even if it was proportional. The Neg would then argue that the system would just require some revision, and that it would therefore be just. Then the Aff response would be to bring up the definition of "are" (yes, I did define "are" as “To exist in actuality…To take place; occur” (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)).<BR/>Is it possible as the Affirmative to concede that hate crimes are worse, and do deserve worse punishment, but the system for increasing that punishment is what is unjust?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-80171421810073794482008-03-09T08:45:00.000-07:002008-03-09T08:45:00.000-07:00Ok on the 1st Aff.I like this case. I actually hit...Ok on the 1st Aff.<BR/><BR/>I like this case. I actually hit one that was extremely similar at CFL's. <BR/>1. Like Jim said, define equal. It's going to be hard to find a good definition and your opponent couldnail you on that. <BR/>And define how much equality. My opponent advocated all crimes deserve equal punishment and he said we should differentiate between murder. <BR/>2. I would say change it to HCE are subjective. I ran this and its pretty effective. Say laws are trying to minimize subjectivity and since HCE rwquire a judge to make a decision regarding feelings then it leaves the rights of both defendant and the victim up in the air. Also its appropriate to use some degree of intent: ie. I did intend to beat someone and I actually did beat them. It doesn't matter if it was racially motivated or not because I intended to and did beat them.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That's all I have for now.<BR/>Really like the case though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-67390938605285368542008-03-09T06:39:00.000-07:002008-03-09T06:39:00.000-07:00Thank you so much for the critiques! They will rea...Thank you so much for the critiques! They will really be helpful for revisions!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com