| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,15 @@ |
|
1 |
+**A Interpretation: The aff must defend that there is a direct legal obligation to affirm. “Ought” refers to a legal relationship between an empirical condition and some legal justification. KELSEN:** |
|
2 |
+Kelsen, Hans. “Pure Theory of Law.” 1934 |
|
3 |
+Both cases involve...democratic, capitalistic France. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+**B Violation:** |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+**C Vote Neg:** |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+**Ground - moral claims are irreducably paradoxical in a way that necessitates my debate as a basis for the topic. WITTGENSTEIN ’65:** |
|
10 |
+By Ludwig Wittgenstein. “A Lecture on Ethics.” 1965 |
|
11 |
+Now what I...important, or trivial. |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+**Also, legal education is a unique net benefit in the name of transforming older ideas in tangible platforms for change. WEINSTEIN ’03:** |
|
14 |
+Weinstein, Janet. “Stuck in a Rut: The Role of Creative Thinking in Problem Solving and Legal Education.” California Western School of Law. 2003. |
|
15 |
+As legal educators...kinds of thinking. |