tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post638275686609815173..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.Jim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-21157268874743509252009-01-22T06:12:00.000-08:002009-01-22T06:12:00.000-08:00Wow.! U All REally Suck.! U Should See Soldan Deba...Wow.! U All REally Suck.! U Should See Soldan Debaters.!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-46716196989443227632009-01-13T13:15:00.000-08:002009-01-13T13:15:00.000-08:00I'm debating this resolution for the first time. I...I'm debating this resolution for the first time. I really want to know how I would run my affirmative case. But in my negative, Since we aren't talking about a true democracy as in "A government for the people by the people" then I would also want to emphasize that also. <BR/><BR/>does anyone have some good cards for this resolution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-36924905632188943272009-01-05T20:47:00.000-08:002009-01-05T20:47:00.000-08:00ok for my aff case im wanting to run democracy for...ok for my aff case im wanting to run democracy for my value. now, i am still contemplating on what to run as a vc. Would someone please explain and define "sanctity of rights" and explain how i dould incorporate it into my case...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-72042842700337977262009-01-03T20:01:00.000-08:002009-01-03T20:01:00.000-08:00I'm confused about what a "felon" is in terms of t...I'm confused about what a "felon" is in terms of this debate. Are we debating just those who have committed felonies and are in jail, or are we also debating felons who have already served their time in jail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-36207862464425557422008-12-16T13:28:00.000-08:002008-12-16T13:28:00.000-08:00hey sexy beast um can i get your name? i would lik...hey sexy beast um can i get your name? i would like to quote you, but it would really sound wierd if a man like me said "sexy beast says" please have some mercy! thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-79103566778524021802008-12-09T17:39:00.000-08:002008-12-09T17:39:00.000-08:00Ah you see democracy is nothing but an idea based ...Ah you see democracy is nothing but an idea based upon popular sovereignty. The idea that every democracy has moral codes is because every democracy usually has a constitution. Also It is not nihilist because I am not advocating the absence of morals or values because some things such as life are natural human rights guaranteed to all so thus fall out of democratic jurisdiction(if the aff tried to argue that voting has a natural human right then you simply say that it cannot be because it is denied to children-therefore is not categorical) <BR/><BR/>To answer your second question, in theory a democracy is a rule by the people, strictly a majority. Not to sound like Rousseau but a Democratic society is based upon general will.<BR/><BR/>As to the question why they should follow the majority, this confuses me a little bit. If people refused to follow popular sovereignty(which is not necessarily majority rule) the society would cease to be a democracy... <BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>I was thinking on this idea today in my speech and debate class and my friend and I came up with a case revolving around this idea... <BR/><BR/>V: Democracy<BR/>CV: Moral Freedom(or some other phrasing of the following explanation) A democratic society is based upon the idea of popular sovereignty. in order to maintain this sovereignty the society must be free to chose its own morals and values and not have outside ideas imposed upon them without popular consent. Thus respecting moral freedom is respecting democracy. <BR/><BR/>C1. A democracy OUGHT to do nothing.(same as original point)<BR/><BR/>c2. A system that works for one society may not work for another. SO therefore we cannot establish a system of justice that is universal and must let each society choose. (I back this up by essentially asking "who's justice is the most just?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course I need to find a definition of ought that is applicable...<BR/><BR/>What is your ideas on this case? I lost two rounds using the SC based case because people seem to have adapted to it, so either I need to try something else or fix my case and I think this one would be interesting(although I need to add something as a failsafe for nihilism)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-90289135402756390602008-12-08T20:30:00.000-08:002008-12-08T20:30:00.000-08:00Another question that gets to the heart of the iss...Another question that gets to the heart of the issue: *why* should people in a democratic society follow the dictates of the majority?Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-16223030411811252372008-12-08T20:29:00.000-08:002008-12-08T20:29:00.000-08:00Matt, interesting point. It essentially takes "dem...<B>Matt</B>, interesting point. It essentially takes "democratic" to be descriptive rather than normative. How would you escape the charge of nihilism, though? Don't democratic societies still have to protect *some* kind of morality or value structure? Or is it just "whatever the majority says?"Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-35943261624809593432008-12-08T20:22:00.000-08:002008-12-08T20:22:00.000-08:00I have an idea for a Neg contention and want to se...I have an idea for a Neg contention and want to see what you guys think<BR/><BR/>The First clause(in a democratic society) and the second(felons ought to retain the right to vote)are inherently contradictory. In a democracy there is not ought or ought now. The entire point of a democratic society is that of popular sovereignty and saying that something OUGHT to happen is undemocratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32528991995950357582008-12-03T18:14:00.000-08:002008-12-03T18:14:00.000-08:00failure, before you run with that, consider:1. Not...<B>failure</B>, before you run with that, consider:<BR/><BR/>1. Not all citizens can vote. (Children are natural-born citizens.)<BR/><BR/>2. Felons don't lose all their legal rights; they can still sue the government, for example, for cruel and unusual punishment, and can appeal their cases.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-41638278858925294772008-12-03T16:28:00.000-08:002008-12-03T16:28:00.000-08:00for a negative argument, what about trying that fe...for a negative argument, what about trying that felons lose their right to citizenship by attacking society thus losing their right to vote by definition of citizen? my team has been trying this one and i was wondering if it totally sucked or what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32721699546149497832008-11-28T17:21:00.000-08:002008-11-28T17:21:00.000-08:00Thank you so much Jim and Anonymous!Thank you so much Jim and Anonymous!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-3669568739777376312008-11-27T07:39:00.000-08:002008-11-27T07:39:00.000-08:00You should be ok for that attack. Just point out t...You should be ok for that attack. Just point out that Hitler/Germany were not a democratic state so their attack is non-topical/irrelevant. They were a totalitarian/fascist state where power was centralized in the hands of the minority which allowed them to control the marketplace of ideas (and by the use of coercive force, they controlled the mass population against their free will). This is in direct contrast with a democracy in which the majority has the greater influence on the marketplace. So obviously the hitler analogy doesn't work. <BR/><BR/>If they bring up the "what if game" (ie what if the majority condones genocide, etc.) you could probably just bail out by saying that your opponent is being conditional to a scenario that has neither been warranted or proven to be likely whatsoever. You could also say that because democracy is the stated value in the resolution, his case has the same flaw making his attack hypocritical. It is also non-unique on the level that it has almost nothing to do with the resolution and could happen to any democracy in the world, regardless of franchising felons or not. <BR/><BR/>Hope I helped =]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37764234216546217052008-11-24T20:53:00.000-08:002008-11-24T20:53:00.000-08:00If the society truly believes mass genocide is the...If the society truly believes mass genocide is the answer, wouldn't it be safer to argue that it has abandoned all pretense at being democratic? As <B>anonymous</B> noted above, totalitarians take control of the marketplace of ideas, they don't let it function as democrats do.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-55329021825872302762008-11-24T16:50:00.000-08:002008-11-24T16:50:00.000-08:00Okay so I wrote an AFF Marketplace of Ideas case h...Okay so I wrote an AFF Marketplace of Ideas case here's how it goes<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>V- Societal Progress<BR/><BR/>Cr- Mill's Marketplace of Ideas<BR/><BR/>C1- One's vote is one's own opinion and bias on a matter. Felons cannot hve their own opinions surpressed.<BR/> <BR/>C2- MMoI must be applied to this society's democratic process in order to insure societal prgress as well as democracy.<BR/><BR/> SA- MMoI based on the concept of free exchange market... explain...<BR/><BR/> SB- MMoI is most important concept in the democratic process... blah....<BR/><BR/>C3- In order to achive MMoI everyone must retain right to vote.<BR/><BR/> SA- All ideas must be expressed freely in order to achieve progress. It doesn't matter whether the opinion is good or bad, the society still benefits from it.<BR/><BR/> SB- Felons thus must be goven right to vote.<BR/><BR/> SC- Democracy is inly insured if felons are allowed to participate in the democratic process... they are still citizens... blah, blah, blah...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So I read this to my fellow debaters and they attacked me on this...<BR/><BR/>-If the society thinks that mass genocide will progress it, then is it justifiable under MMoI? (Just as Hilter believed killing Jews would help Germany and many agreed with him, can we still use MMoI?)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Anyone have good counters, other than saying what the heck and condoning mass genocide (becasue I might end up doing so... lol...jk jk)?<BR/><BR/>-ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-67123217621092782222008-11-22T15:39:00.000-08:002008-11-22T15:39:00.000-08:00That's pretty good Justice-Is-Calling. You have th...That's pretty good Justice-Is-Calling. You have the basic concept down, now how about the impacts of contaminating the MoI with authoritative interference?<BR/><BR/>An obvious one is denying truth (which is the goal of the MoI) because felons are just as capable of donating useful views and ideas as any other citizen. The other, perhaps bigger impact would be invalidating democracy. Look to history as a warrant for this impact. What has happened when a person or select group of people tried to selectively mold the marketplace of ideas? It brought about totalitarianism/dictatorship (Think Hitler and Stalin)<BR/><BR/>Good luck!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-86281863570446558362008-11-21T14:40:00.000-08:002008-11-21T14:40:00.000-08:00Hello, I am thinking of running Mill's marketplace...Hello, I am thinking of running Mill's marketplace of ideas on the Aff side. Does anybody have good ideas on how to make this work extremely well? <BR/><BR/>So far I would just argue that in Mill's Marketplace of Ideas everyone's voice and opinion (or vote) needs to be mentioned and taken notice of. Whether that opinion is voted for by the majority doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the opinion (or vote) was included. <BR/><BR/>Also i would mention that felons cannot corrupt this democratic society by their vote unless the majority of the citizens agreed with them anyway.<BR/><BR/>Anymore Ideas???<BR/><BR/>-thanks!-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-16552305138490286342008-11-19T14:52:00.000-08:002008-11-19T14:52:00.000-08:00I have been working on my neg argument for a while...I have been working on my neg argument for a while and finnaly finished it and I have found alot of great affirmitive literature but for the life of me I cant seem to be able to start an argument for the aff can anyone send me a outline for one or a small argument to help me get the right idea dmnyoshi@hotmail.com I have to win this debate if that cocky kid in my school wins another and starts talking like hes some sort of deity again I have no idea what I am going to doAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-89158288457500105382008-11-19T14:51:00.000-08:002008-11-19T14:51:00.000-08:00I have been working on my neg argument for a while...I have been working on my neg argument for a while and finnaly finished it and I have found alot of great affirmitive literature but for the life of me I cant seem to be able to start an argument for the aff can anyone send me a outline for one or a small argument to help me get the right idea dmnyoshi@hotmail.com I have to win this debate if that cocky kid in my school wins another and starts talking like hes some sort of deity again I have no idea what I am going to doAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-78437791795726279042008-11-18T22:43:00.000-08:002008-11-18T22:43:00.000-08:00John Locke's social contract essentially attem...John Locke's social contract essentially attemps to explain a (democratic) government. Why? The individual forms a relationship with the government--the individual gives up some of his or her own rights & abides by the law and the government in turn provides protection.<BR/><BR/>If you violate a speeding law, you're not going to killed lol. The resolution is talking SPECIFICALLY about felons--a heinous crime. Violating a speeding law is not seen as a crime against society. However, when we're talking about crimes such as murder, rape, arson, etc., crimes that involve violation of the right to life or property, then those individuals violated the social contract to a GREATER degree and thus taking away the right to vote is justified.<BR/><BR/>Also, we need to remember that if a government can give a right, it can also be justified in taking away that right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-81272173204622149552008-11-18T19:18:00.000-08:002008-11-18T19:18:00.000-08:00No I think the social contract doesnt mean breakin...No I think the social contract doesnt mean breaking the law in general it means when you do something against someone elses rights and it doesnt mean death in particular it means that at that point the government doesnt have to hold up its end of the bargain by guaranteeing you your rights to some extent Idk im pretty new to the social contract as well so I might be wrong but I hope I was helpfulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-23362222244013628792008-11-18T18:11:00.000-08:002008-11-18T18:11:00.000-08:00I dont understand the relationship between social ...I dont understand the relationship between social contract theory and how societies actually function. Under the basic social contract premise- anyone who breaks a law "looses" the obligation that the government had to protect its rights. So to use a common example say someone is caught speeding then shouldn't that person be killed. The government has obligations to protect its citizens and their rights from someone who would speed( thereby potentially causing harm to others). The basic way for the government to fulfill its obligations would be the most cost effective- so as to maximize its ability to fulfill its obligations. Prison and exportation would be more expensive than killing. I think this example highlights my lack of understanding of how social contract philosophy interacts with punishment.<BR/>Agreement? Disagreement? Explanations?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-10059358939212860772008-11-17T16:01:00.000-08:002008-11-17T16:01:00.000-08:00yea I see how the definition of democracy here cou...yea I see how the definition of democracy here could be very useful Im on a high school debate team that is still very new and when we first debated this topic the 2 debaters kept saying U.S. I didnt tell them anything cause I figured I could save it for now lol but yea im trying to come up with a good definition for democratic societyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-17484851457018823842008-11-17T09:12:00.000-08:002008-11-17T09:12:00.000-08:00Just to add to my previous post...we must realize ...Just to add to my previous post...we must realize that both the Affirmative and the Negative have to debate within the context of a democratic society--so always link whatever you say to what is ought to be done in a democratic society. Sounds simple, but it can become an easy mistake if you get carried away.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, it's fine if you use the United States as an example, but do not go any further than that. If you bring up the United States, you must realize that there are also other nations who may not have the same policies or procedures as the U.S. but are STILL considered democratic. Conditionally focusing on the U.S. can be disasterous.<BR/><BR/>Finally, when we talk about a democratic society, we can easily narrow down the definition. Obviously the resolution is not talking about a limited, representative, etc. democratic society, so we cannot be specific to any one of those. HOWEVER, every single democratic society contains elements and qualities that make them democratic in the first place. That's where you can start your arguments--basing them off the qualites any democratic society would entail. It gives you a better sense of control and that's always a plus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-16260939154684050332008-11-16T11:30:00.000-08:002008-11-16T11:30:00.000-08:00Ok, seeing as I am most likely not debating this t...Ok, seeing as I am most likely not debating this topic anymore (no more tournaments on this topic for me), I'll give my thoughts.<BR/><BR/>AFF<BR/>The right to vote is essentially an opinion--one's political expression or opinion towards a certain party, candidate, belief, platform, etc. We can tell a vote is an opinion because it's bias.<BR/><BR/>I'll use an example:<BR/><BR/>Citizen A votes for a certain party and has not committed a felony.<BR/><BR/>Citizen B votes for the same party Citizen A votes, but has committed a felony.<BR/><BR/>What's the problem? <BR/><BR/>Who is to say that a felon's opinion is less than that of another individual? Because an opinion is just that--one's personal bias and partiality.<BR/><BR/>So by limiting the right to vote, we can see that it's also limitation of freedom of expression and no democratic society would ever want that. That's not what ought to be done.<BR/><BR/><BR/>NEG<BR/>Well, I had a harder time with the neg.<BR/><BR/>When we're talking about a felony, we're talking about heinous crimes that is seen not only as a crime towards the individual, but is also seen as a crime towards society. If I murdered you (a heinous crime), I violated your right to life. Why should I be given the right to vote when I took away your right to life? So we can see that the right to life must be placed above the right to vote (duh). Lets not give when others are taking.<BR/><BR/>Also, the right to vote is a right given to the citizens on behalf of a democratic society (which has institutions such as government), so if we can give a right, we can also take away that right. And then you can go on saying that the right to vote is justified in taking away because blah blah blah.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Just me opinion :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com