Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
napolean solo

Policy to LD

Recommended Posts

My policy debate season is over cause my coach wants to put her focus on the varsity, however i do have the option of going LD. i dont anticapate i'd get any help from my coach so id have to put my case together myself, however i have a pretty good idea of what id do for this months topic of judicial activism.

 

anyway, i pretty much get the main outline (1 person, funny different portions of time for affs. and negs.) and that you have to have a value.. but the thing is, i would like to debate LD as much like policy as i can, and im not sure how much that could be. So if there is anyone here who has debated both policy and LD, or just LD who want to give me some basic tips, or inform me of the similarities/differences that would be great. Btw i live in the great lakes region..im not sure if thats significant but i know that some states have different styles than others..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did LD a year, and it's not possible to present a policy when you are aff. LD judges like very articulated debate rounds, alot of explanation and persuation. It's not really like policy where whoever has the best cards or the most recent when it comes to politix has an advatage. It comes down to arguing skills. I don't know about there, but here in tx, you not only have to have a value but also a criterion. Criterion is basically something that you have to achieve what you are valueing. Also, since the aff's don't present policy, the negs can't run CPs. LD is basically whether you affirm the rez or not. nothing like K's and whatnot. That's all i can remember since CX seem to have taken over my life.

 

Hope that helped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My policy debate season is over cause my coach wants to put her focus on the varsity, however i do have the option of going LD. i dont anticapate i'd get any help from my coach so id have to put my case together myself, however i have a pretty good idea of what id do for this months topic of judicial activism.

 

anyway, i pretty much get the main outline (1 person, funny different portions of time for affs. and negs.) and that you have to have a value.. but the thing is, i would like to debate LD as much like policy as i can, and im not sure how much that could be. So if there is anyone here who has debated both policy and LD, or just LD who want to give me some basic tips, or inform me of the similarities/differences that would be great. Btw i live in the great lakes region..im not sure if thats significant but i know that some states have different styles than others..

Eh - I did reasonably well at KS State in LD last year, and know a bit if you want some advice. Hit me up on AIM.

 

dzpltnm32

 

Peace,

Derek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a two-time national qualifier and state finalist in LD from St. Louis, and I'm always willing to help. Drop me a line sometime.

 

AIM = dcAjn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your aff should be parametricized. Do "Overturn Korematsu v the US," with the deconstruction of racism as your value and pragmatism as your criterion. The sweet thing is that when they claim it's abusive to support a specific action, you say

1. It's key to real education rather than just arguing X and not X the whole year. Call for a real debate rather than a stupid and non-inventive one

2. My criterion justifies my aff - a pragmatic view of the world takes each action as a situation to be interpreted independantly of any other. Generalizing any sort of paradigm to fit all possible cases of judicial activism undermines the purpose of a pragmatic political system (quote some Rorty).

3. Their interpretation justifies counterwarrants, which are dumb and uneducational.

 

Throw in a few more arguments, be ready for some basic attacks on your case, and you've pretty much turned the LD round into CX. Hooray!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did LD for 3 years, and then realized how horrible it is, and did CX my Senior year. (And was marginally succesful, all things considered.)

 

Anyway - the important thing to keep in mind is that instead of coming from a policy stand point, it is all about value.

 

A major part of your case is your Value/Criterion. (Your criterion being some sort of stepping stone to your value.)

 

Although it is possible to run "kritikal" positions in LD, I have learned through experience that it will most likely not go over well with the judge. It's also pretty much impossible to run a policy as your affirmative position. The only way to really make it more like CX is to utilize evidence and warrants - two things that many LDers seem to avoid like the plague these days. (Okay, so I judge a few bad rounds this year.)

 

But, yeah. Tada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it allowed to parameterize the LD resolution? It'd be pretty neat to split up the CX teams and flood the LD brackets with people running CX cases without the cards.

 

And how much weight does theory have in LD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it allowed to parameterize the LD resolution? It'd be pretty neat to split up the CX teams and flood the LD brackets with people running CX cases without the cards.

 

And how much weight does theory have in LD?

It depends... theory definitely has its place in LD. I would suggest reading articles from Larry McGrath on http://www.victorybriefs.net for more specific usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My policy debate season is over cause my coach wants to put her focus on the varsity, however i do have the option of going LD. i dont anticapate i'd get any help from my coach so id have to put my case together myself, however i have a pretty good idea of what id do for this months topic of judicial activism.

 

anyway, i pretty much get the main outline (1 person, funny different portions of time for affs. and negs.) and that you have to have a value.. but the thing is, i would like to debate LD as much like policy as i can, and im not sure how much that could be. So if there is anyone here who has debated both policy and LD, or just LD who want to give me some basic tips, or inform me of the similarities/differences that would be great. Btw i live in the great lakes region..im not sure if thats significant but i know that some states have different styles than others..

Neg- Run a Judicial activism K, and have the alternative of rejecting the affirmative to dismantle Judicial activism, our Lders thought they were good so I wrote a case and beat them without having debated LD before at a tourny. Here is my LD case I wrote it in 15- 20 minutes, it might have a few logical errors in it, but feel free to use it.

 

 

Intro: In the 1940’s there were 120,000 Japanese (AMERICANS) living in the western United States. Japan attacked us, and soon due to Judicial Activism, Americans did not distinguish between a Japanese American, and a Japanese National and 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans were detained for no reason.

 

My resolutional Analysis is the affirmative must prove that Judicial activism can protect rights, while the negative simply must prove it does not protect rights. This is clearly one of the fairest RA’s and divides ground evenly. They are prepared to prove it protects rights while the negative is prepared to show it doesn’t. My RA doesn’t twist anything to be abusive, it makes the round fair.

 

My value for this round is Locke’s Natural rights. In this round I will show that judicial activism destroys all natural rights of races. This value is the best in round because these are all you are guaranteed in life. You aren’t guaranteed a government will protect you, you aren’t guaranteed anything else. These rights are also a necessity, you can’t lack one of these rights and live a fulfilling life.

 

My value criterion is the Aristocratic Method. The Aristocratic method is a means for presenting an argument, and concluding what is wrong with someone else’s point. So merely my value is achieved by my criterion by simply showing that

A) The affirmative does not uphold the resolution

B) The affirmative is a bad option

C) The affirmative can not achieve their value

D) That the resolution is a bad idea

 

I will show that judicial activism is a bad thing, and by you as a judge voting negative it allows my value to be achieved by you rejecting Judicial activism.

 

Contention One: The Korematsu ruling was judicial activism

According to the Urban dictionary Korematsu was Judicial activism

Judicial activism- Cases where the court declined the opportunity use its power, such as in the Terri Schiavo case, or Korematsu v. United States (1944).

 

Contention Two: Judicial activism allows for a severe deprivation of rights and privacy

Now to show what Judicial activism did, I will read from this author

 

WESLEY in 1998

The indignities suffered by Japanese Americans due to their internment were not confined to their loss of freedom N77 They lost both real and personal property N78 They lost businesses and employment income. They lost pets and farm animals. They were forced to wear identification tags, and many endured living conditions unfit for animals. [*450] They suffered disruption of familial life and customs. They suffered disease hardship, and exposure to the elements, poor sanitation and poor diet. They lost all rights to privacy, even to the extent of performing ordinary bodily functions. They suffered shame. They lost educational oppurtunities. They lost freedom of expression and the ability to communicate freely with others outside the camps. They were denied the right to use the Japanese language or read Japanese literature other than the Bible and the dictionary. They lost control over their own labor. Even the moral conscience of Japanese (AMERICANS) was invaded by conditioning release on swearing an oath of loyalty to the United States. Many internees, especially the elderly, endured these conditions for as long as four years. Many died. Upon release, hostility towards Japanese Americans continued, though the majority had neither homes nor businesses nor jobs to which to return.

 

Contention three: Court decisions write judical narratives

Courts say hey, we ruled this way on A in the past, this current case is a test case for A, meaning we should rule the same way. Test case meaning the same or a similar case as before. By ruling the same way over and over, courts set judicial precedents.

These precedents set values the courts uphold.

Subpoint A: The horrifying events of judicial activism are inevitably repeated due to judicial narratives and precedents.

Because Courts write judicial narratives, there is a reoccurrence in these lack of rights. The Korematsu decision set a precedent for the Hirabayashi ruling, and current internment related cases dealing with Guantanamo bay.

 

Contention four: Courts tell us what values we should have, the Korematsu decision was based on race, racism is still being perpetuated today because courts uphold the value of racism.

According to Gostin in 1989, courts tell us what values we ought to have, the Korematsu and Hirabayashi decisions were racist, this perpetuates the value of racism to American society.

Overview: Tying the pieces together.

Judicial activism deprives people of rights they deserve. Judicial activism allows for the constitution to be undermined. In the examples I give they show that Judicial activism violates the fourth and fourteenth amendments. In conclusion judicial activism is horrible.

NEXT

Because Judicial activism sets a precedent and writes a narrative, Judicial mistakes are continuously repeated. The errors are not just a one-time thing where you learn from them and move on. The mistakes of judicial activism are continuous like a wheel on a cart. The deprivation certainly moves round and round. The loaded weapon of internment was manufactured by judicial activism. The loaded weapon is still around today because of judicial activism. There is nothing to stop the courts from striking down another race with this weapon.

 

NEXT

The final ruling on the Korematsu decision only cited Japanese Americans. The Korematsu decision was evidently racist. Justice Jackson only cited Japanese Americans as “spies and terrorists”. Not any of America’s other enemies at the time such as Italians and Germans. These justices upheld that racism is okay, and in a sense valued racism as a tool. Because people look to courts for what is okay and what isn’t, for what values to have, people receive the message that racism is okay. Judicial activism causes racism to be upheld in American society.

Next

There should be no doubt in your mind that judicial activism is a weapon that deprives people of rights. You must vote negative because of what I have shown judicial activism to do.

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...