Jump to content

Case List

Recommended Posts

At St Marks a case was run with the philosophy of buddhism.


i dont think anyone else in the nation was running this besides my partner and i. but now, we are reading a different affirmative (also one that no one else reads) so you shouldnt have to worry too much about the aff. anyway, believe it or not, this is a stock aff from northwestern (Dangerousness).


if i am correct in assuming that this is our case which was being discussed, then an overview of the case might help. basically, our argument was that the Demore v. Kim decision justified and allowed for the detention of legal permanent residents without charge because they are detained before their bail hearing and before they have been determined to be either A. a danger or B. have a flight risk. these people are detained because of past offenses that either fall under the category of moral turpitude or something else, i dont remember at the moment. our argument was that we need to take a buddhist/nonviolent stance towards everything and accept everything with an ethic of unconditional love. we read a lot of evidence about criminology and buddhism, buddhist ethics, nonviolence, and threat con-ish evidence from buddhists. the advantages we had in the 1ac were normalization, dehum/rights-ish stuff, and structural violence (which probably needs a little explanation.

the argument was that we look external to the community for the cause of our problems and this justifies a xenophobic stance towards everything and everyone, specifically immigrants and legal permanent residents, and this is a form of structural violence which results in mass death and the continuation of impoverishment.


thats the basic idea of our aff - there was an outline of it in the greenhill case book.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Create New...