Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[2]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 17:07:10.889
	1	+2016-12-03 17:07:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,32 @@
	1	+I negate and value Morality because “ought” implies a moral obligation.
	2	+To negate means “to deny the existence or truth of,” so negating requires no positive justification and second any argument that proves the resolution false is sufficient to negate.
	3	+Presume negative
	4	+A) Proving any part of claims or their assumptions as untrue makes the statement false, so because there more ways to prove a claim false than true, we err to believe the statement is false.
	5	+
	6	+B) We do not assume certain things are true without justifications, for example you would not believe if I said unicorns exist unless I showed proof. Therefore, we assume things are false since we err false in the absence of a justification.
	7	+
	8	+C) The aff gets to speak first and last meaning they have a clear advantage on 1AR theory. Both sides have 13 minutes of speaking so time skew does not matter. They get to set up and end the debate with their own comparison; this means they can be more persuasive. Persuasive appeal outweighs time skew and strat skew because the amount of arguments I make don’t matter if new cross apps in the 2AR preclude and are the last thing in a judge’s mind. This also means you should check theory interps in CX to avoid 2N as well as 1AR substance skew, no need to read theory if we can resolve issues in cross :3
	9	+The actor is the government because the resolution asks what the United States ought to do.
	10	+The state only comes about because individuals fear for their lives in a state of nature. In the state of nature, they have no protections from the actions of other individuals and have no stable method for ensuring their own survival. Given their propensity for survival, they come together and form a commonwealth to act as the agent of their protection. They cede rights to the sovereign in order to ensure their protection. This is the basis of the state’s obligation and demarcates the boundaries on their power. States are therefore permitted to do anything as long as they see it in their interest to ensure their continued wellbeing.
	11	+ Therefore, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. This means you should negate if I prove that the limiting of qualified immunity for police officers is inconsistent with the maintenance of state power
	12	+
	13	+Prefer my standard additionally
	14	+1. Moral Discourse- outside of the state there is no regulative authority to ensure that individuals are capable of engaging in the same moral language. For example, one party can think good means x and another thinks that good means y. The state clarifies this dispute by being an ultimate arbiter and declaring what is good and bad. This means that absent my standard, moral language makes no sense.
	15	+2. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state based morality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it.
	16	+3. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers; in the same vein, the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with other generalized interpretations of morality.
	17	+My contention is that a prohibition on nuclear power is inconsistent with the states perspective.
	18	+A- The Police act in accordance to the will of the government, which means if the intentions of the government are to aid its people via the act of police violence it isn’t morally punishable as the state cannot punish itself for being immoral as by virtue of it acting it is moral
	19	+
	20	+B- The act of removing a method of safety for the police officers is a method of state limiting its own power which is inherently immoral as the state is needed to function as a sovereign
	21	+
	22	+C- Qualified immunity protects government agents from the burden of lawsuits, absent protection from these lawsuits, police officers (the tools of the state) are hindered from fulfilling their obligations
	23	+
	24	+Schott 12
	25	+Richard G. Schott, J.D. “Qualified Immunity; How It Protects Law Enforcement Officers.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 2012. https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers
	26	+Law enforcement is a difficult profession. It presents many challenges and risks, as well as great rewards, to those who undertake it. One of the risks associated with law enforcement is the possibility of being sued civilly for an action taken in the course and scope of one’s employment. In an effort to mitigate the costs and burden of defending oneself from a lawsuit, government actors are entitled to assert immunity as a barrier to being sued. For law enforcement officers, the level of immunity available is qualified immunity. As the name implies, this type of immunity is protective, but is not an absolute guarantee against successfully being sued. It is comforting, though, to know that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect all but “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”61 As this article has demonstrated, the test to determine whether qualified immunity should be afforded officers has changed over the years, but the objective nature of the doctrine itself has remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. This objective determination often shields competent law enforcement officers from defending a suit itself, much less from being found liable at the conclusion of a suit.
	27	+Rosen 05
	28	+Michael M. Rosen, (Rosen is an and graduated from Harvard Law School in 2003) A Qualified Defense: In Support of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases, With Some Suggestions for its Improvement, 35 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1899andcontext=ggulrev
	29	+It is hard to deny that the more time police officers spend at trial defending their conduct, the less time they spend patrolling the streets, the more money their departments expend in their defense, and the more frequently the officers will second-guess certain behaviors in the heat of the moment. These drawbacks may well be justified for the sake of society's prevention of tortious and unreasonable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents. Nevertheless, police agencies, Supreme Court justices, and some scholars highlight the important role that qualified immunity can play in reducing unnecessary costs and in improving deterrence of crime.
	30	+Prefer additionally:
	31	+1) Other government agencies and scholars believe themselves that qualified immunity is necessary
	32	+2) Fulfilling government obligations is only possible with qualified immunity

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 17:07:13.471

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ikr

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Prosper EH

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dulles Kurian Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Hobbes NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT