Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The End

Possible Advs for Attorney-Client (BOP Order)

Recommended Posts

I have been looking into this case, and I have thought about writing my own version of it. It looks pretty solid, but it doesn't have alot of advantages. What might some advantages be (Kritikal and Policy)? The case deals with the Attorney-Client Privilege. The USFG has given the Attorney-General to bypass this constitutional right in the name of security. The plan makes it so the Attorney-General has to get a warrent before he listens in on Attorney-Client communications. Right now it has three adv: Seperation of Powers, Terrorism, and Civil Rights. What else could I get out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im going to nats thanx to the BOP aff, just use terrorism and civil rights, SOP is a bad advantage (we do it all the time)

 

extend on how we have alternative ways to do things that dont violate rights and then just use the t-rizm and civ rights, and you will do good...

 

be prepared to answer the fact that we are only listening in on 16 people in total

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, well make an advantage on how the BOP order violates everything the justice system is put in place for, and that a snowball effect is caused by the BOP which will eventually take away all right a prisoner has, such as speedy trial or double jeopary...i can send u a card saying that atorney-client confidentiality is crucial to the realization of all other egar rights if you would like to do a snowball advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privacy

Justice (this one is really good, there's a Levinas and Nemo impact that totally kicks ass)

Legal system credibility maybe? If people aren't secure in their lawyer and what they can tell their lawyer, they'll never go to court? (of course, CLS and Hollow Hope make pretty damn good impact turns on this...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run low-impact advantages that are real-world and toned down.

 

Then, when you get a DA run against you, make your entire 2AC disaster porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, when you get a DA run against you, make your entire 2AC disaster porn.

 

That's a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still a terrible idea. "Rather than respond to your argument, I will criticize you for making it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's still a terrible idea. "Rather than respond to your argument, I will criticize you for making it!"

 

isnt questioning the speaker of the argument one of the best way to respond to it? if the speech was ____ist, maybe we should reject it at the core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that's one of the worst ways. It's called an ad hominim fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alright, well make an advantage on how the BOP order violates everything the justice system is put in place for, and that a snowball effect is caused by the BOP which will eventually take away all right a prisoner has, such as speedy trial or double jeopary...i can send u a card saying that atorney-client confidentiality is crucial to the realization of all other egar rights if you would like to do a snowball advantage

 

snowball links are the best ones! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Privacy

Justice (this one is really good, there's a Levinas and Nemo impact that totally kicks ass)

Legal system credibility maybe? If people aren't secure in their lawyer and what they can tell their lawyer, they'll never go to court? (of course, CLS and Hollow Hope make pretty damn good impact turns on this...)

 

Could you possibly send me the Levinas and Nemo card? Or at least tell me where to get it?

 

thefifthace12345@hotmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Privacy

Justice (this one is really good, there's a Levinas and Nemo impact that totally kicks ass)

Legal system credibility maybe? If people aren't secure in their lawyer and what they can tell their lawyer, they'll never go to court? (of course, CLS and Hollow Hope make pretty damn good impact turns on this...)

 

Could you possibly send me the Levinas and Nemo card? Or at least tell me where to get it?

 

thefifthace12345@hotmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the Levinas and Nemo card. We ran it last year on our Timor aff - it's pretty sweet.

 

Decision-rule: Justice is the ultimate strength – we must cast aside all other concerns in its pursuit

Emmanuel Levinas, & Philippe Nemo, philosophers, ’85

(Levinas was a retired professor at Université Paris-Sorbonne, Nemo is a professor at the European School of Management, Ethics and Infinity, p. 12-14)

 

 

Radical alterity figures in Levinas’ thought not as a flaw, an ignorance, an obscurity, a childishness, a laziness or a deferral, but as the non-thematizable charge through which ethics commands. “What ought to be” — the subject’s response to the Other — relates to “what is” — being, essence, manifestation, phenomenon, identity — not by some subtle or crude conversion into “what is,” but by haunting it, disturbing it, raising it to a moral height of which it is not itself capable. The alterity of the other raises the subject in a severe responsibility which bears all the weight of the world’s seriousness in a non-indifference — with no ontological basis — for the other. When in the late 1930s the British colonial administrators asked Gandhi what he expected from his annoying non-violent agitation, the Mahatma replied that he expected the British would quit India. They would quit India on their own because they would come to see they were wrong. Moral force is a scandal for ontological thinking, whether that thinking is gently attuned to being or imposing its subjective will. The power of ethics is entirely different from the power of identities, whether poetic or political, whether knowledge or administration. It escapes and judges the synthesizing, centralizing forces. Ethics is forceful not because it opposes power with more power, on the same plane, with a bigger army, more guns, a finer microscope or a grander space program, but rather because it opposes power with what appears to be weakness and vulnerability but is responsibility and sincerity. To the calculations of power, ethics opposes less than power can conquer. With their lathi sticks the British occupational police struck their opponents, hurt them dreadfully, but at the same time they were hitting their own injustice, their own inhumanity, and with each blow non-violently received were taught a moral lesson. Not that they were necessarily taught a lesson: ethics is not ontology, it is not necessary, one can kill. Moral force, however, the proximity of the face-to-face, the height and destitution of the other’s face, is the ever patient counterbalance to all the powers of the world, including nuclear power. Moral force is not stronger than the powers of being and essence, the totalizing, synthesizing powers, it is better, and this is its ultimate strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the Levinas and Nemo card. We ran it last year on our Timor aff - it's pretty sweet.

 

Decision-rule: Justice is the ultimate strength – we must cast aside all other concerns in its pursuit

Emmanuel Levinas, & Philippe Nemo, philosophers, ’85

(Levinas was a retired professor at Université Paris-Sorbonne, Nemo is a professor at the European School of Management, Ethics and Infinity, p. 12-14)

 

 

Radical alterity figures in Levinas’ thought not as a flaw, an ignorance, an obscurity, a childishness, a laziness or a deferral, but as the non-thematizable charge through which ethics commands. “What ought to be” — the subject’s response to the Other — relates to “what is” — being, essence, manifestation, phenomenon, identity — not by some subtle or crude conversion into “what is,” but by haunting it, disturbing it, raising it to a moral height of which it is not itself capable. The alterity of the other raises the subject in a severe responsibility which bears all the weight of the world’s seriousness in a non-indifference — with no ontological basis — for the other. When in the late 1930s the British colonial administrators asked Gandhi what he expected from his annoying non-violent agitation, the Mahatma replied that he expected the British would quit India. They would quit India on their own because they would come to see they were wrong. Moral force is a scandal for ontological thinking, whether that thinking is gently attuned to being or imposing its subjective will. The power of ethics is entirely different from the power of identities, whether poetic or political, whether knowledge or administration. It escapes and judges the synthesizing, centralizing forces. Ethics is forceful not because it opposes power with more power, on the same plane, with a bigger army, more guns, a finer microscope or a grander space program, but rather because it opposes power with what appears to be weakness and vulnerability but is responsibility and sincerity. To the calculations of power, ethics opposes less than power can conquer. With their lathi sticks the British occupational police struck their opponents, hurt them dreadfully, but at the same time they were hitting their own injustice, their own inhumanity, and with each blow non-violently received were taught a moral lesson. Not that they were necessarily taught a lesson: ethics is not ontology, it is not necessary, one can kill. Moral force, however, the proximity of the face-to-face, the height and destitution of the other’s face, is the ever patient counterbalance to all the powers of the world, including nuclear power. Moral force is not stronger than the powers of being and essence, the totalizing, synthesizing powers, it is better, and this is its ultimate strength.

 

That is a nice card. Thanks Think Tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...