tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post4560302943975086110..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: legalization and time: another LD MailbagJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-4263276065438385632010-12-01T19:29:43.925-08:002010-12-01T19:29:43.925-08:00Dear Jim,
Well I'd first like to say that I...Dear Jim,<br /> Well I'd first like to say that I am a decorabilia-fanatic. Thanks for all the work you put into your blog because it really helps my friends and I with our cases. <br /> I don't understand why everyone is arguing about legalization and illegalization anyway. Isn't the rez talking about what to do with abusers, whether the drugs are legal or not? I really don't get how legalization ties into that at all. <br /><br /> Also, what is your opinion on taking a empathetical stance from the Affirmative ground? Would it be reasonable to say that addiction is really a disease because of the brain's neurological tie to drugs, and that we should try to lead abusers to health instead of punishing them for something beyond their control? <br /> Just a couple ideas. I don't really get this resolution. I have to have both my cases done by the 11th or I'm screwed. HELP!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1500769395413326722010-11-25T12:17:51.124-08:002010-11-25T12:17:51.124-08:00Hmm... I'd like to think that's a foolproo...Hmm... I'd like to think that's a foolproof analogy, but I do wonder if there's a functional difference between the two. <br /><br />For instance, "endangered species" may or may not require a normative response--not all societies or legal systems care whether a certain kind of penguin faces extinction--but in every society, an "illegal drug," by definition, is criminal to some degree and in some way.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-4466850870715354212010-11-25T08:16:48.959-08:002010-11-25T08:16:48.959-08:00The way I justified legalization as aff ground was...The way I justified legalization as aff ground was by positing "Resolved: The poaching of endangered animals ought to be prevented." In this case, no one could reasonably argue that the aff must keep animals endagered. As far as I am concerned, illegal does nothing more than tell us we are not talking about Nyquil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52387924399775735112010-11-16T20:07:46.016-08:002010-11-16T20:07:46.016-08:00Anonymous, you either junk your contention, or arg...<b>Anonymous,</b> you either junk your contention, or argue that legalization is resolutional, as I've done above.<br /><br /><b>C</b>, given that the framers of the resolution make no published statements as to their intentions, warranting the claim by referring to "framers' intent" would be based on sheer speculation. Instead, argue based on reasonable definitions from authoritative sources, and from commonly accepted terms within legal or public health contexts.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52371399747929943492010-11-16T20:00:20.138-08:002010-11-16T20:00:20.138-08:00How about just arguing that the framer's inten...How about just arguing that the framer's intent of "illegal drugs" is made to refer us to psychoactive substances rather than drugs that are illegal, on the grounds that the term "illegal drug" is just what they're casually referred to as?<br /><br />I argued one round that if the rez was referring to drugs that are illegal, it would encompass off-prescription or stolen legal drugs. However everyone in the room knows thats not what the framer's intent was, so they accept your interpretation of the term.Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-89285364054749666142010-11-16T16:53:11.318-08:002010-11-16T16:53:11.318-08:00i recently was at a debate tournament and i was af...i recently was at a debate tournament and i was aff, and my opponent said my contention of legalization reduces drug violence --non-violent methods of dispute become possible, she said that legalization doesnt match with the resolution? so what do i do ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-42340703282297557362010-11-16T15:53:55.022-08:002010-11-16T15:53:55.022-08:00I had always thought of arguing that the ILLEGALIZ...I had always thought of arguing that the ILLEGALIZATION of drugs in themselves is illogical, rather than push that legalization be allowed. You could maintain that the state doesn't have power over what citizens do to their own bodies (Foucalt and Biopower). I like to use the comparison that we can't force a person not to commit suicide, and we can't charge him with anything either. Similarly, we can't put someone who's self-harms in jail because of what they do to their own body. So in this case, you could argue that the only reason that trafficking and creation is such a crime is directly because of the illegalization. You could take alcohol as an example here too (like you said in a previous post, Jim).Alexnoreply@blogger.com