tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post5450247220994950069..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: value and criterion pairs for the international criminal court resolutionJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-58981372941053104002009-02-12T21:04:00.000-08:002009-02-12T21:04:00.000-08:00Also what are your guys's views on the ACTA?Also what are your guys's views on the ACTA?Scottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461114082883685410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-43091830156535436442009-02-12T21:01:00.000-08:002009-02-12T21:01:00.000-08:00Thanks COmakid, so just try and disprove his case ...Thanks COmakid, so just try and disprove his case to value link and then drive that point in, that sounds good, Thanks A lot!!!Scottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461114082883685410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-50240316100919837892009-02-12T20:18:00.000-08:002009-02-12T20:18:00.000-08:00Lil'Petey? Good luck. Remember this on neg; the af...Lil'Petey? Good luck. Remember this on neg; the aff is like a machine to get to the value.<BR/><BR/>The neg's job is to disassemble that machine. You don't have to destroy the value, nor do you have to prove your own case right. Instead, directly clash with your opponent; this resolution is DESIGNED for clash.<BR/><BR/>And finally? Have fun.Comakidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377367564854793363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-7271853778807893782009-02-12T20:07:00.000-08:002009-02-12T20:07:00.000-08:00Hey guys I also have a tournament tomorrow and it ...Hey guys I also have a tournament tomorrow and it is a pretty big one so I am looking for some last minute ideas. Especially on the neg can anyone help???Scottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461114082883685410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-29851664006648360542009-02-11T15:16:00.000-08:002009-02-11T15:16:00.000-08:00Ok, I am running the Prudence/Political Realism ne...Ok, I am running the Prudence/Political Realism neg case and it isn't having much luck against Aff cases about the U.S. joining to strengthen the court to help try other nations' criminals. As far as I am concerned, that doesn't even apply to the resolution but several people at the last meet were running it and I lost both of my neg rounds. Anyone have an idea on how to go at those cases either with my current V/VC combo or with a new one? A quick response would be great because I have a meet on friday (2/13).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-45374870425933955632009-02-10T21:34:00.000-08:002009-02-10T21:34:00.000-08:00Hi Jim,In my negative case, my two contentions dea...Hi Jim,<BR/>In my negative case, my two contentions deal with national sovereignty and with the international court being as fair and effective as the U.S. judicial system. I'm having lots of trouble coming up with a value premise and criterion that fit both contentions logically, and neither I nor my fellow debaters have thought of anything better than passable. Any ideas? If anyone else has thoughts, please jump in!<BR/>Thanks!Findinghimselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387183612070778150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-81789018952486626862009-02-10T21:33:00.000-08:002009-02-10T21:33:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Findinghimselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387183612070778150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-60636176565100578272009-02-10T20:26:00.000-08:002009-02-10T20:26:00.000-08:00Hey guys, I am seated fourth for districts in thre...Hey guys, I am seated fourth for districts in three weeks. I am in a pretty weak district so I am pretty sure I can break but I wanted to know If there is anything that has been working for you so that I could improve my chances because I really want to debate the next res but it is only at state.Scottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461114082883685410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-50308869444389920602009-02-08T13:37:00.000-08:002009-02-08T13:37:00.000-08:00Iam still having an issue with my Value Criterion ...Iam still having an issue with my Value Criterion . It seems as if Cosmopolitanism isn't sounding to be a sound VC to rest on Aff because I looked up what it means and it made the linkages to my argument seem weaker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-73795132024429950082009-02-04T18:30:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:30:00.000-08:00@ MattThanks. And yes, your assessment of "appeal ...@ Matt<BR/>Thanks. And yes, your assessment of "appeal to authority" is correct.<BR/><BR/>Moving up to varsity next tournament. Panicking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-21445004792396988602009-02-04T15:51:00.000-08:002009-02-04T15:51:00.000-08:00Thanks for you help!i need all the help i can get!...Thanks for you help!<BR/>i need all the help i can get!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-72720778884604905282009-02-03T20:20:00.000-08:002009-02-03T20:20:00.000-08:00The Value and Criterion issue is all relative. It ...The Value and Criterion issue is all relative. It depends on how well you argue it, what the opposing value and criterion is etc...<BR/>I personal opinion, Justice is the strongest value, and I think realism is hard to attack for the Neg and I think in general Pragmatism is hard to refute as a criterion. <BR/><BR/>Look at teh Premises of Cosmo and see how that relates to the resolution... universal Human duty, global community... etc.. <BR/><BR/>Sovereignty is a good neg criterion, the issue with running it is the moral relativism argument. an opponent can just ask "should we condone abuse of citizens by their government in order to respect sovereignty?" <BR/><BR/>Just specify at the beginning or just refer to it in our case...<BR/><BR/><BR/>appeal to authority is a logical fallacy... It essentially, as I was taught, is saying "x is true because Jesus said so" <BR/><BR/>Cx questions depend on the case, the judge, and any other strategy you may have... some people use CX for clarification, I use it try to go after points and point out contradictions and get concessions... either way works...Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-83972552728237173812009-02-02T09:26:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:26:00.000-08:00Hi everyone, I am fairly new to the world of LD de...Hi everyone, <BR/><BR/>I am fairly new to the world of LD debate, so I just had some general questions about the case. <BR/><BR/>First, <BR/><BR/>I've been noticing a lot of different values premises and value criterions being tossed around, but I was wondering what everyone thought has the strongest possibilities and why. <BR/><BR/>I'm leaning toward justice and cosmpolitanism for the affirmative, but I was wondering where I should begin my contentions, and if this pair is easily linked to strong arguments. <BR/><BR/>I keep noticing the mention of national sovreignty and moral relativism. Why should I stay away from these? I'm not clear on the arguments being made against them. <BR/><BR/>The ICC is used through out as an example of "the international court", but how would you introduce this into your case, since the resolution does not specifically mention it. If I use it, do I need to say 'or something like it" <BR/><BR/>Also, what is "appeal to authority" mean? <BR/><BR/>Lastly, <BR/><BR/>What kind of approach should I take with the CX? Are there any general questions which could be a good starting point against either? <BR/><BR/>Overall, I see a lot of possibilites with this and would appreciate any help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1299628323359153762009-01-31T19:41:00.000-08:002009-01-31T19:41:00.000-08:00I need some help. I really can't think of any poin...I need some help. I really can't think of any points for my debate. This is my very first time LD ing...<BR/><BR/>V: Human Dignity<BR/>C: Protecting Human RightsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-90624610193325004692009-01-29T23:57:00.000-08:002009-01-29T23:57:00.000-08:00Morality is not a Criterion... I also do not under...Morality is not a Criterion... <BR/>I also do not understand your link...Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76249044499381155942009-01-29T17:44:00.000-08:002009-01-29T17:44:00.000-08:00Jim,I was wondering if I could use justice as my v...Jim,<BR/><BR/>I was wondering if I could use justice as my value because the goal of any court and prosecution of any criminal is to reach and strive for justice in the end.<BR/><BR/>My value criterion is morality because the resolution questions what the US "oughts" to do. seeing that the negatives goal is to prove the resolution false, if you do not submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to uphold justice, then you must look to your domestic government, which must be moral and fair to fairly and successfully prosecute criminals. <BR/><BR/>Do you suppose that could work? <BR/>p.s. I'm doing novice so...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-10781799361977221682009-01-25T16:52:00.000-08:002009-01-25T16:52:00.000-08:00I'm working with a Human rights (v) and Cosmopolit...I'm working with a Human rights (v) and Cosmopolitanism (c) structure, but I'm having issues with the body of my case. Would the point of such an approach be to prove that human rights have a universal standard (or that there is simply one right way to approach a situation)? If so, how would I prove something like that through multiple contentions without citing different contradictory theories on decision-making?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-87026511158706907722009-01-20T19:34:00.000-08:002009-01-20T19:34:00.000-08:00I think Kant supplies a Link... "The condition of ...I think Kant supplies a Link... <BR/><BR/>"The condition of the possibility of international law in general is this: a juridical condition must first exist. For without this there is no public law, since all law which one may think of outside of this, in the state of nature, is merely private law." (Kant is Perpetual peace) you could link it a number of ways else... Although Kant has alot of good links...Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-80799666572667214872009-01-19T20:31:00.000-08:002009-01-19T20:31:00.000-08:00okay, so i was at gonzaga, and my neg case worked ...okay, so i was at gonzaga, and my neg case worked well, but my aff really sucked. I eventually lost in semis just because my case was not convincing enough. so:<BR/>i am working on using cosmopolitanism, but i am having a hard time structuring it where the United States joining an international court supports cosmopolitanism. Help?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77186321104221904702009-01-14T17:41:00.000-08:002009-01-14T17:41:00.000-08:00Comakid, Lets hope so... The whole Nazi attack aga...Comakid, Lets hope so... <BR/><BR/>The whole Nazi attack against Nat. Sovereignty can be defeated by saying sovereignty is derived from the Social Contract. As Long as you keep your Definition Clear of Moral Relativism you should be fine...<BR/><BR/>Also I think a Value of Justice Defined as "that which is just is that which provides a greater benefit to society"(Aristotle) is really strong, especially if you can win the Value clash. This Forces Aff to prove that Affirming is good for the U.S. Also the Link to Nat. Sovereignty is pretty quick and easy. <BR/><BR/>And I agree any time you can make the AFF waste in the 1AR will always help you... <BR/><BR/><B>JV Joe</B><BR/>While alot of people use a HR Aff I don't think it is that strong... Here is a question for you, If CAH dehumanize then how does AFF stop them? The answer would be deterrent for future offenses.<BR/><BR/>For Neg:<BR/><BR/>John Bolton:http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?64+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+167+(Winter+2001)<BR/><BR/>Somewhere is there he talks about deterrence and how even Military does not deter. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I have others I can't find the link to if i can I will post them.<BR/><BR/>For AFF look up the Hate Speech in the Ivory Coast<BR/><BR/>I have said it before but I think that deterrance will be a huge point for neg or AffMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-62898555397497846232009-01-13T22:04:00.000-08:002009-01-13T22:04:00.000-08:00Sorry for the Double post, but likewise, couldn't ...Sorry for the Double post, but likewise, couldn't you attack it on the neg by saying that prosecuting these criminals won't cause their violations to UN-happen? Not 100% sure how to deal with the deterrent issue, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-24968082364951758632009-01-13T22:02:00.000-08:002009-01-13T22:02:00.000-08:00Just a theory (haven't had a chance to try it out,...Just a theory (haven't had a chance to try it out, missed the GU tournament) On the Human Rights AFF, since you'd want to tie in crimes against humanity, couldn't you do that directly by defining it as "crimes and acts that dehumanize" (or some other phrasing that can actually be sourced)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-46972670759159294172009-01-12T20:58:00.000-08:002009-01-12T20:58:00.000-08:00I agree that National Sovereignty is a powerful cr...I agree that National Sovereignty is a powerful criterion. This is because national sovereignty, on its own, isn’t worth much as a value, but when you link national sovereignty as a VC to dignity or equality, then your argument remains strong.<BR/><BR/>On the down side, National Sovereignty can still be turned against you no matter what you do, especially if a link is made to the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. Of course, since the neg case really doesn’t matter anyway, by running nat. sov. arguments you waste precious affirmative time in the 1AR, because the aff will either let it slip and you can win on National Sovereignty criterion linking to Human Dignity, or you will waste an affirmative minute or two while they bash on your case. <BR/><BR/>And in LD, every second counts. Besides, there must be SOMETHING good about national sovereignty; otherwise, there’d be no countries, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too, if you catch my drift.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you’re right, Matt; we’re never going to meet normally: the tournament I attended this weekend was Gonzaga. Perhaps if we both make it to Nationals?Comakidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377367564854793363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77811871515284917772009-01-12T20:29:00.000-08:002009-01-12T20:29:00.000-08:00Sorry for the double post, but I remembered someth...Sorry for the double post, but I remembered something else...<BR/><BR/>If your school has any good Policy Debaters ask them about the topic. Although you may never use anything on the cards, Policy Hegemony good/bad cards give good ideas for contentions. This may seem odd in an LD round, but I faced a Neg case that essentially ran U.S hegemony. Running a Multi-polarity argument on Aff may work as well.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-56054267293112584082009-01-12T20:20:00.000-08:002009-01-12T20:20:00.000-08:00Comakid, I am not sure if we are ever at the same ...Comakid, I am not sure if we are ever at the same tournaments, I live in Colorado so I am not sure if I have ever seen you at tournaments...<BR/><BR/>If you want to do well read the Rome statute, it provides great arguments for both sides, that are often hard to refute... <BR/><BR/>I Agree with you fully on the Argument From Authority point... Also as an extension to that everyone, before you use an article check the credentials of the author(Jim touched on this in another section of this blog, it is really important)<BR/><BR/>Although my thoughts on Hypothetical courts may vary slightly... Theoretically in a round the Aff has the burden to prove the resolution true, thus in a hypothetical court situation neg needs to take advantage of the possible flaws of such a thing( Almost unlimited Jurisdiction and such) Although I agree with you on that a Neg should never focus the debate on hypothetical courts. if the Aff tries to neg you need to A) push for the ICC and B) look at the inherent flaws of an International court system. A smart Neg should beat an Aff pushing for hypothetical courts every time. <BR/><BR/>Comakid, are you saying NS is a bad criterion or just a bad value? I agree with Value but I think it makes a very powerful criteria as long as you stay away from a Moral Relativist stance. M aybe define It as part of the social contract or Run SC itselfMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.com