tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post7905022099069966102..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: LD mailbag: consequentialism and the international criminal court resolutionJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91642463568579348602009-02-10T19:00:00.000-08:002009-02-10T19:00:00.000-08:00For those running sovereignty on neg:(Sorry for ca...For those running sovereignty on neg:<BR/>(Sorry for caps) THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN RUN THAT. Your opponent will definitely call abuse, as there is no possible way the US can submit and still retain their sovereignty. If in the framework there is no way for aff to win, its abuse, the judge will probably drop your case or at least your value and criterion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52836565208445906662009-01-15T21:22:00.000-08:002009-01-15T21:22:00.000-08:00Alicia, it would mean something like the definitio...<B>Alicia</B>, it would mean something like the definition of welfare, generally applied to humans. See, <A HREF="http://www.answers.com/welfare" REL="nofollow">for instance:</A> <BR/><BR/>[Human] health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.<BR/><BR/>Make it for "all humans," and you have a very cosmopolitan Aff framework.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37644781868667599372009-01-15T20:52:00.000-08:002009-01-15T20:52:00.000-08:00can someone respond please?can someone respond please?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00454901880479033262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-40795197107177356582009-01-13T20:04:00.000-08:002009-01-13T20:04:00.000-08:00Jim, how exactly would you define "human welfare"?...Jim, how exactly would you define "human welfare"?<BR/>I can't find a good definition for it.<BR/><BR/>And how do you link "human welfare" to the resolution?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00454901880479033262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-58455222109362561112009-01-06T10:17:00.000-08:002009-01-06T10:17:00.000-08:00Mel, it's a form of negative argumentation borrowe...<B>Mel,</B> it's a form of negative argumentation borrowed from Policy Debate, and not accepted in all regions / styles of LD. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritik" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia has a good intro.</A>Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-53068614067687645432009-01-05T19:26:00.000-08:002009-01-05T19:26:00.000-08:00What is a kritik?What is a kritik?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-86385060198733489142009-01-03T18:58:00.000-08:002009-01-03T18:58:00.000-08:00Well, you technically can run a case without a cri...Well, you technically can run a case without a criterion, but unless you run a kritik, it can rarely be beneficial. If you do, you are forced to agree with the AFF's criterion. And what neg wants to link his impacts to, say cosmopolitanism in this resolution? Trust me, Ive won a round mid-debate because my opponent didn't have a V/C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-42286940715616522102009-01-03T15:42:00.000-08:002009-01-03T15:42:00.000-08:00I've seen people run without a criterion... One pe...I've seen people run without a criterion... One person I know ran a kritik as his entire case... and went 6-0 in prelims for state. LD in Wisco is weird like that. <BR/><BR/>I've always wondered how to get around people who do that sort of thing. I'm not sure I would be able to respond decently to a kritik argument.mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830252073502465482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-33210676010718772812009-01-03T10:38:00.000-08:002009-01-03T10:38:00.000-08:00You don't need a criterion? I beg to differ...You don't need a criterion? I beg to differ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-88340559356269070602009-01-02T20:26:00.000-08:002009-01-02T20:26:00.000-08:00Well my value is going to be Justice for my AFF, a...Well my value is going to be Justice for my AFF, and for my NEG...probably justice it is never a bad idea to use justice as a core value. and you don't necessarily need a criterion, but if you want use national sovereignty for NEG that might workAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-17755804044060257312009-01-02T13:52:00.000-08:002009-01-02T13:52:00.000-08:00Governmental Legitimacy is the moral authority to ...Governmental Legitimacy is the moral authority to govern. Put into simpler terms it's the answer to the question "Who made you boss?". A legitimate government provides Justice for its citizens, as looking after the welfare of its citizens is the government's primary obligation.mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830252073502465482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-20904694471186571302009-01-02T09:44:00.000-08:002009-01-02T09:44:00.000-08:00I’m a novice and I don’t completely understand gov...I’m a novice and I don’t completely understand government legitimacy. Any information would be helpful. But just because a government is legit does it make it therefore just? Oh and I like the sound of just government vs. justice as my value. Thanks! Any more tips are greatly appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-50179784292947722812009-01-02T08:45:00.000-08:002009-01-02T08:45:00.000-08:00Or you could even use Just Government as your valu...Or you could even use Just Government as your value, and criterion of Nat. Sov. Whatever floats your boat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-86614943950759624212009-01-01T21:32:00.000-08:002009-01-01T21:32:00.000-08:00I'm not really sure that there is a clear link...I'm not really sure that there is a clear link b/w Justice & Nat'nl sovereignty... perhaps use gov't legitimacy as your value, that would work more.mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830252073502465482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-14640167162495039762009-01-01T18:38:00.000-08:002009-01-01T18:38:00.000-08:00Can someone explain the link between justice and N...Can someone explain the link between justice and National Sovereignty. I want to use justice as my value and NS as my CR but i dont know how to make a clear link between them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32534034951433361862009-01-01T18:02:00.000-08:002009-01-01T18:02:00.000-08:00The one thing I don't get is how you're using cons...The one thing I don't get is how you're using consequentialism as your criterion...can someone explain that for me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37657771889593972962009-01-01T11:40:00.000-08:002009-01-01T11:40:00.000-08:00Croc, if your using gov. legit, the generally stra...Croc, if your using gov. legit, the generally strategy is to define it through your criterion. If you value gov. legit, you argue that the legitimate government is that which respects your criterion, say Nat. Sovreignty. This tends to make a clearer case, which is good. Imo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-31209976436926994312008-12-31T16:48:00.000-08:002008-12-31T16:48:00.000-08:00@ LD n00b; Justice should be the main aim of any c...@ LD n00b; Justice should be the main aim of any court.<BR/><BR/>I'm personally using Justice as my VP on neg, and my argument goes as such: the only reason that the US should join the International court in the resolution would be if this court provided a better chance of justice for US citizens. If you affirm for political reasons, you are placing the overall "politics" of the US gov't before justice for the lone US soldier or official who is on trial. You are essentially sacrificing the soldier. <BR/><BR/>As an aff, I'd argue back that the overall welfare of the country is more important, and that the ICC provides a better conception of jusitce for both parties involved (assuming that the case involves a party other than the US, that is)<BR/><BR/>As for governmental legitimacy, I'd really like to find a definition for that. I've looked all over the interwebz and haven't managed to find a decent one yet, so I'm just avoiding it in my case and challenging the other side to define it and provide a link to the resolution.mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830252073502465482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-2282411786244015272008-12-31T15:47:00.000-08:002008-12-31T15:47:00.000-08:00hey jim, can you explain more on governmental legi...hey jim, can you explain more on governmental legitimacy and how it relates to national sovereignty?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-15506039907737757842008-12-31T15:35:00.000-08:002008-12-31T15:35:00.000-08:00Mr. Anderson, slight non-sequator here, but do you...Mr. Anderson, slight non-sequator here, but do you know of any good arguments as to why justice should be a value? Especially when opposed to a realist interpretation such as "US welfare"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-67796542051254435772008-12-30T13:13:00.000-08:002008-12-30T13:13:00.000-08:00Bhajji: Would the ought=morality argument be disc...Bhajji: Would the ought=morality argument be discredited by simply saying that states <I>have</I> no moral obligations? States make decisions based on cost-benefit analyses, not based on some absolute moral framework.<BR/><BR/>There are many definitions of ought that say it defines simply an obligation or duty--not a <I>moral</I> obligation or duty. On the differences between should and ought:<BR/><BR/>Ought, Should. Usage: Both words imply obligation, but ought is the stronger. Should may imply merely an obligation of propriety, expendiency, etc.; ought denotes an obligation of duty. <BR/><BR/>States have an obligation to protect their own interests, not to conform to a particular notion of morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77936961847423982292008-12-30T08:06:00.000-08:002008-12-30T08:06:00.000-08:00But the Neg would easily argue that sovereignty IS...But the Neg would easily argue that sovereignty IS a componentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-36296175932437334512008-12-29T15:44:00.000-08:002008-12-29T15:44:00.000-08:00Dont use sovereintywell, i would just say sovereni...Dont use sovereinty<BR/><BR/>well, i would just say soverenity doesnt matter, because this issue is from a moral standpoint.<BR/><BR/>ought= moral,<BR/>otherwise the resolution would use the word should insteadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-63798107669676622732008-12-27T15:17:00.000-08:002008-12-27T15:17:00.000-08:00HELP!!!How does national sovereignty link to gover...HELP!!!<BR/>How does national sovereignty link to government legitimacy. I mean, I know that in order for a government to be legitmate, it has to have sovereignty, but WHY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-83788384121650842882008-12-27T14:24:00.000-08:002008-12-27T14:24:00.000-08:00If my negative value is government legitimacy and ...If my negative value is government legitimacy and my criteria is national sovereignty, what are some arguments that will link back to the V/VC? Should I point out flaws of the ICC and why it doesn't work, or should I focus on why the US isn't part of the ICC? <BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com