| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,24 @@ |
|
1 |
+===Part One is the Framework.=== |
|
2 |
+analytics |
|
3 |
+Additionally, inductive reasoning fails, so moral interpretations contingent on consequences are nonsensical. Hume : |
|
4 |
+That there are ... point in question. |
|
5 |
+analytics |
|
6 |
+Next, practical reason implies that we must base moral accountability on desert. Korsgaard : |
|
7 |
+But in a ... to be human. |
|
8 |
+analytics |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+===Part Two is the Burden.=== |
|
11 |
+Qualified immunity guarantees certain rights to officials that don't belong to the public thus, the process cannot be desert-based since it doesn't hold officers accountable for all their actions and inequitably distributes rights. Thus, desert demands a general duty to deny qualified immunity, and thus the neg must demonstrate an exception to the rule or you would affirm. This means the neg has the proactive burden to prove a morally relevant distinction between police officers and the general public, who do not have the right to qualified immunity. Whereas, the aff needs to prove there exists no morally relevant distinction between the two. |
|
12 |
+analytics |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+===Part Three is No Distinctions.=== |
|
16 |
+analytics Also, one's function within a society can never function as the foundation for a morally relevant distinction. Boyle and Lavin : |
|
17 |
+In recognizing that ... calls a "soul."26 |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+=====analytics Qualified immunity doesn't hold officers culpable for their actions. **Chemerinksy 14** **: **When there is ... clearly been violated.===== |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+===Part Four is the Underview=== |
|
24 |
+analytics |