Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TARSIER

Seriously, how do people find this stuff?

Recommended Posts

I need some good T files. I had an ok one last year on PKOs from the Irish Defense Force(which did PKO missions) that said PKOs needed military, and it worked really well in the crappy and ignorant league that I debate in( I am quite ignorant too, especialy in debate). So I go looking around the forums and I have no idea how to find good contextual defs (I learned early on that not a lot of judges vote for Dictionary Top Defs). However, I cannot seem to find any good contextuals (I have one USFG from the Whitehouse, and one Probable Cause from some Law book), but no others. I searched for about an hour on google for that subs-without mat. quals and couldn't find anything. I know a lot of debaters here are quite intelligent, which probably seperates my def finding/arg creation from the definitely superior ones discussed on this forum, but where do I start? I do not know where to even look. Please Help

 

TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a definition in BLD is contextual, in the sense that it is derived from a legal opinion/decision/ruling. That's the good news. The bad news is, such definitions are often grounded in specific facts/circumstances of a particular case; BLD does not claim to be prescriptive ("this is how term X should be used"), but rather descriptive ("this is how term X was used in this particular case at law").

 

As for the "without material qualification" definition, the reason you aren't going to find other contextual sources for it is because no one actually uses "substantially" with that meaning in mind... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so...what do I do then?
Well, I would suggest that you stop wasting time trying to run a silly, time-suck T violation, but that's just me... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't just mean the substantially topicality, I meant top in general (or do you think this is a total waste of time)? I just would love to get some ideas about where to take my debate further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't just mean the substantially topicality, I meant top in general (or do you think this is a total waste of time)? I just would love to get some ideas about where to take my debate further.
I'm something of a renegade on the subject. My students are only allowed to run T if they're willing to run it exclusively. That means they only write T briefs on violations they're confident are pretty strong. I believe it's the only way to convince judges (most of whom are, in my opinion, burned out on/extremely cynical about the "strategic" T arguments so popular these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black's Law Dictionary 1968

Revised Fourth Edition, p. (1597)

-SUBSTANTIALLY. Essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially; in a substantial manner. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58, 59; Gibson v. Glos, 271 Ill. 368, 111 N.E. 123, 124; McEwen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 23 Cal.App. 694, 139 P. 242, 243. About, actually, competently, and essentially. Gilmore v. Red Top Cab Co. of Washington, 171 Wash. 346, 17 P.2d 886, 887.

 

My recommendation is to not run that violation, however. I personally think T becomes a much more viable argument when the violation is VERY specific -- seems like judges would be a lot more willing to vote on a credible, specific T violation than one that applies to every case on the topic. Anyhow, if you want to get some good violations, go to your nearest law library and look through some law dictionaries. A lot of the definitions make very good interpretations on this year's topic (e.g., search is a physical examination of body, property or other area a person would consider to be reasonably private for the purposes of finding evidence in a criminal investigation. I forget which dictionary that one comes from, but it eliminates a good 50% of the search cases this year.) That's my two cents, anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be best prepared to run T. Make your own violation. That way you know it better. I would search definitions up on google define. Also, try some legal sorces like Blacks Law. If you have a definition, then you can make a violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is sipping on the w/o material quals hatorade, I think it may be the most utilitarian T shell in the world and it certainly has won a lot of rounds.

 

Is it right? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't run it...people run bullshit arguments all the time and win on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...