| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,44 @@ |
|
1 |
+T – Consequentialism |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+Interpretation- The affirmative must defend act or rule util. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Violation: His aff says “generic util turns do not apply” |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+1. Ground |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+A. Turn Ground- If only intent/phil based offense links to the standard then no negative ground links to the aff because they can always say that consequences don’t matter. Abstract ideals are incontestable goods- literature reviews that implementation difficulties are the only arguments to debate about |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+B. Stable Ground- the 1AR can defend material consequences or defend intentions/philosophical implications of their affs against Ks, they can also skirt out of generic turns and DAs which also inherently prove that they are bad. |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+Ground key to fairness- ensures both debaters have equal access to args |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+2. Topic Literature |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+Qualified immunity doesn't exist independent of empirical legislative decisions and police officer conduct- empirical actual focus is key |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+TLR 4 2004 Texas Law Review "NOTE: The Paradox Of Qualified Immunity: How A Mechanical Application Of The Objective Legal Reasonableness |
|
20 |
+Damage suits against government officials raise a number of competing interests. On the one hand, these suits deter unlawful conduct and offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees. 1 On the other hand, frivolous claims against government officials result in costs both to the defendants themselves and to society as a whole, including the expenses of litigation, the diversion of energy from pressing public matters, and the danger that fear of suit will dampen the ardor with which officials discharge their duties. 2 Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine designed to balance these competing interests. The primary purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials from "undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability." 3 A federal official may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in response to a civil rights suit brought directly under the Constitution. 4 Likewise, a state or local official may interpose the defense when faced with a 1983 action. 5 Since qualified immunity constitutes an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, it protects government officials not only from the ordeal of protracted litigation, but also from the burdens of pretrial concerns. 6 Unlike absolute immunity, however, in theory qualified immunity does not provide officials absolute exemption from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct. 7 Rather, as its name suggests, qualified immunity was designed to protect government officials only in limited situations. 8 |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+Focused topic education outweighs |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+A. Reading a framework and policy solves phil ground- our interpretation allows for negative frameworks to be read |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+B. LD is a values debate isn’t responsive- 1. That commits the is-ought fallcy, just because it is a values debate, doesn't mean it ought to be, 2. That makes an empirical claim without an empirical warrant |
|
27 |
+ |
|
28 |
+C. Timeframe- we have 2 months to discuss the topic- but we can always get phi led from other places |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+D. Debate’s strategic incentives bastardize phil debate |
|
31 |
+Nebel et Al 13 Teaching Philosophy 36:3, September 2013 271 Teaching Philosophy through Lincoln-Douglas Debate JACOB NEBEL Wolfson College, Oxford University RYAN W. DAVIS Harvard University PETER VAN ELSWYK Rutgers University BEN HOLGUIN New York University |
|
32 |
+Another cause of poorly justified relativism and skepticism in LD debate comes from judge expectations |
|
33 |
+AND |
|
34 |
+inclined to accept a controversial philosophical view about morality for the wrong reasons. |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+E. Phil debate creates unrealistic phil decisions |
|
37 |
+Nebel et Al 13 Teaching Philosophy 36:3, September 2013 271 Teaching Philosophy through Lincoln-Douglas Debate JACOB NEBEL Wolfson College, Oxford University RYAN W. DAVIS Harvard University PETER VAN ELSWYK Rutgers University BEN HOLGUIN New York University |
|
38 |
+The LD debate community is on the hyper-methodist end of the spectrum. |
|
39 |
+AND |
|
40 |
+Holocaust wasn’t morally wrong if the debater in question is defending moral nihilism. |
|
41 |
+ |
|
42 |
+F. Comparitive ethics debates are useless- in the real world people argue how actions apply under ethics |
|
43 |
+ |
|
44 |
+G. philosophy is structured in a way that it is responsive in one direction i.e. Hegel is written in response to Kant, but not vice versa, smart negs will pick responsive fw’s without ground against them, only util allows answers from both sides. |