ICC aff case

Aff case
I affirm Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

Resolutional Analysis: The resolution refers to an unspecified international court. To bring clarity to the debate, we should assume that this international court refers to the current International Criminal Court (ICC). The resolution refers to the ICC because it is already contextualized by the words United States, putting it in a real-world scenario, and because it makes the debate relevant, as the United States has chosen not to join the ICC.

Definitions:
Ought: Used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence
Submit: To yield to governance or authority
Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
International: Active, known, or reaching beyond national boundaries
Crimes against Humanity: M. Cherif Bassiouni, a United Nations war crimes expert and professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, defines crimes against humanity as follows:
(1) they refer to specific acts of violence against persons irrespective of whether the person is a national or non-national and irrespective of whether these acts are committed in time of war or time of peace, and
(2) these acts must be the product of persecution against an identifiable group of persons irrespective of the make-up of that group or the purpose of the persecution. Such a policy can also be manifested by the “widespread or systematic” conduct of the perpetrators, which results in the commission of the specific crimes contained in the definition.
As Bassiouni explains, this definition consists of the definitions common to eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, including the statute of the ICC.

Value: Justice - each their due
Because the United States assumes that people are due life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then our primary value must be justice, in order to ensure that people receive those dues.

Criterion: Protection of Human Rights
Because the primary goal of the United States is to ensure that justice is maintained, and each receives their due, we are obligated to act to protect the human rights that people are due. Therefore we must help prosecute those who are guilty of crimes against humanity because they violated those rights.

Contention 1: The ICC is an acceptable substitute for United States Criminal Court
a) The ICC's rules are very similar to those of the United States, and could be considered constitutional if altered only slightly. Furthermore, the United States helped create some of the statutes of the ICC. For example, in an article titled "The Constitutionality of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court," found in the Spring 2008 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, David Scheffer and Ashley Cox explain:
[T]he United States actively participated in further negotiations on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crime for the ICC. Both of these documents, upon which the U.S. delegation had insisted in Rome and to which the delegation had made major contributions, such as preparing the first draft of the Elements of Crimes and leading negotiations thereafter, were adopted by consensus, joined by the United States, in June 2000.

b) Bassiouni's definition of crimes against humanity includes the statutes of the ICC, as well as statutes from past tribunals on the same subject, some of which the United States has participated in, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. If the court's definition coincides with definitions employed by the United States in the past, then the court is clearly an acceptable standard of justice when it comes to punishing crimes against humanity.

Contention 2: The United States is obligated to join the court, both on a moral level and by the constitution
a) The constitution advocates the enforcement of justice by the United States in international matters. Once again, from Scheffer and Cox:
The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, and there is a very powerful one that often goes unnoticed. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." Particularly with respect to atrocity crimes, it would be an entirely logical and warranted exercise of such constitutional power to create, in concert with other governments, an international criminal court that defines, prosecutes, and punishes such incontrovertible "Offences against the Law of Nations," namely, atrocity crimes, and to legislate that such an international court's judgments and sentences be given effect in the United States to the same extent as they are recognized by and enforced in other State Parties to the Rome Statute.
Additionally, there are crimes punishable by the ICC that are not present in United States law, and would therefore go unpunished under the United States system. Many international crimes are currently undefined in US law, and some of these include crimes against humanity, which represents a violation of human rights if ignored.

b) The ICC would provide accountability that the United States needs in order to legitimately act on a world scale
The jurisdiction of the United States does not extend beyond our own territories. We fully recognize the sovereignty of other governments in the world. However, the United States frequently takes action in other countries in the world by trying to overthrow governments. We cannot be allowed to act on other countries without being subject to the jurisdiction of other countries. For example, consider the World Court case Nicaragua v. United States in 1986. The court ruled that the United States had supported the contra rebels and mined Nicaragua's harbors, which represented a violation of international law. However, the United States refused to recognize the legitimacy of the world court in the case, and didn't comply with the verdict. Because the United States acted against another country, and supported rebels who violated human rights, we had violated our own value of justice. However, we refused to submit to the court, and thus justice was never achieved. The ICC and the World Court are separate organizations, but the point remains the same: for the United States to act in a just manner on a global scale necessitates its being under the jurisdiction of a world court.

I now stand open for cross-examination.


Blocks:
Neg argument: An international court could be composed of just China and Russia, or include nations hostile to the United States, so we obviously shouldn't join.
Aff response: The resolution is contextualized by the United States, and so there's no reason to look to a hypothetical court rather than the one that currently exists. And the ICC as it currently exists contains 108 countries, many of which are allies with the United States, and none of which are hostile towards it. (Card if needed, from Scheffer and Cox: As of October 1, 2008, there will be 108 State Parties to the Rome Statute. These include almost every major ally of the United States, many nations that are considered friends, and none that are characterized as evil, Communist, or adversarial. They consist of all but one of the European Union nations, Canada, Mexico, most of Latin America and the Caribbean, a majority of African countries, and sixteen Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.)

Neg argument: Joining the court would violate US national Sovereignty
Aff response: The ICC is limited in its jurisdiction to prosecuting crimes that the country in question is unable or unwilling to do so. Provided that the United States modifies our its own laws to cover international crimes against humanity, and provided that the United States follows its own principles of justice and prosecutes people accordingly, then the ICC will have no grounds for overriding the United States.

the January / February LD resolution is available

I've started my usual analysis, linking, and discussion here. (Oh, and novices--don't worry. You won't debate it until January. Only Open debates this resolution at Auburn-Riverside.)

first aff case

this is my current aff case, and its also the first one I've ever done. It's only a skeleton of a case at this point, but i would really like some advice on how to add to it. i have some ideas, but I'd like to see what other people think as well.

Aff Case

"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." because I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, I stand resolved that in in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

For clarity, I offer the following definitions:

democratic: pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

felon: a person who has committed a felony.

ought: used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.

retain: to continue to use, practice, etc.

right: that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.

vote: to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot

My value is freedom.
As I said earlier, a democratic society is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. Therefore, freedom is the most important value in a democratic society because the if the people are free, then they will have the ability to exercise the power to choose the leaders and laws of the society. If the people's freedom is taken away, then the society will no longer be democratic because the people will no longer be in control. Also, people must have the freedom to choose who they are, live where they want, and say what they want. If people have these, then they will be significantly happier and more fulfilled than people in a more oppressive form of government, such as a dictatorship.

My criterion is tolerance.

Justice Oliver Wendell Jones called a free society a "marketplace of ideas". To ensure freedom, the government must not suppress any of the ideas and remain tolerant of them, thus ensuring freedom. Therefore, tolerance is my main criterion because if we do not accept others' right to express their ideas, their freedom is suppressed, and this can cause them to harbor resentment towards the government and possibly act out in violent means. Furthermore, Democracy, as a form of government, allows laws to be changed to fit the needs of the populace. No laws in a democracy are completely absolute. Furthermore, democracy values deliberation over certainty. Monarchs are certain; democrats know that their truths are practical and provisional rather than absolute. So, tolerance is a critical aspect of all of these things. We tolerate dissenting points-of-view because we are humble enough to know that ours might change in the flow of democracy.

My first contention is that to ensure freedom, democracy depends on leaders taking into account the interests of all citizens.

As Tom Christiano writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each, more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press” (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor."

If we deny a group of people their ability to participate in the democratic process, then politicians will not need to consider their needs. This will allow their concerns to go unnoticed, and they will not be able to correct problems in their part of society. The ability to recognize and remedy problems is an important part of our society. If we disenfranchise a certain group of people, then our society will be less capable to diagnose and correct problems within.

My second contention is that to ensure freedom, felons' voices must be included in the democratic process.

“Perhaps the most obvious consequence of felon disenfranchisement is that, if felons cannot vote, the political process may not adequately reflect their interests.” As a group, felons have a unique set of concerns, in particular relating to their ex-convict status.”- Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

If felons have a unique set of concerns, then we should include those concerns in the democratic process. looking back on Tom christianos quote from earlier, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. If felons are denied the right to vote, then the decision-makers will not have to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of felons. Under these circumstances, not only can horrible things occur to them unchecked, but they have no way of changing their conditions.

My third contention is that democracies risk the temptation to disenfranchise dissenters, becoming intolerant and denying freedom.

Felons express often express dissent through their crimes. Knowing this, then if we disenfranchise felons, then this could lead to the conclusion that we should disenfranchise all dissenters. Felons are often dissenters, so if we disenfranchise some of them, then we are not far from disenfranchising all of them.


by the way, I'm probably going to update this as i go, so please check back and continue to comment.

Tahoma tournament slideshow

Thanks to judge (and former CHS debater) Josh Cole for taking, and sending along, these photos from the Tahoma tournament.

Aff Case Rough Draft

Aff Case

I affirm Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

For clarity, I offer the following definitions:
-Democratic: See democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
-Society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
-Felon: Someone who has committed a felony
-Ought: Used to express duty or moral obligation
-Retain: To keep

My value for this round is Moral Pluralism (also known as value pluralism or ethical pluralism)
Societies, by definition, have common beliefs and institutions. When it comes to morality, some societies may use moral absolutism, the concept that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of circumstances. However a democratic society grants supreme power to the people equally, so the fundamental ideal of the society must be that one person's beliefs cannot be suppressed simply because they conflict with the beliefs of others, or else the society would cease to be democratic. This would appear to call for a philosophy of moral relativism, which states that no set of morals can be judged to be superior or "correct" because all morals are subjective. However, the problem with moral relativism is that it fails to draw a line for what can be allowed. There are some actions, such as unprovoked murder, that are almost universally condemned by a democratic society and interfere with the functioning of the society. Absolutism and relativism both go too far in opposite directions, leading to undemocratic societies. For a society to remain democratic, a middle ground is needed: moral pluralism, which states that morality is subjective and cannot be rationally evaluated, but also acknowledges that there are limits imposed on the differences which can be allowed.

The obvious problem with looking to moral pluralism as the supreme value of a democratic society is the question of where we should draw the line. At what point does something cross the threshold and become something that cannot be allowed, even under moral pluralism? To establish that line, we must look to a criterion of Mill's Harm Principle. In Chapter 1 of On Liberty, John Stuart Mills explains "that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This is how we can draw the line for moral pluralism; as long as an action does not violate the liberty of another member of the society, that action cannot be restricted, because doing so would be applying an absolute moral standard. In the case of voting, denying the right to vote would only be acceptable if the action of voting would actually harm the liberty of other members of society. This is not the case; voting is about expression, and we currently deny the right to vote simply on the basis of what the felon in question has done. This is unacceptable under moral pluralism.

Contention 1: Felons cannot be disenfranchised due to immorality
In "Liberal and Republican Arguments Against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," found in the Winter 2005 edition of Criminal Justice Ethics, Jeffrey Reiman points our that one of the main reasons for disenfranchisement in the United States is "preserving the purity of the ballot box, that is, protecting the electoral process from morally unsuitable voters."
Reiman elaborates by citing an argument by Christopher Manfredi, who states that we are limiting "the political participation of individuals who have manifestly demonstrated that their character is predominantly self-regarding, present-oriented, and impulsive. In short, disenfranchisement is reasonable because criminal offenders are in general less empathetic and more impulsive than other citizens."
As Reiman points out, the assumption that all felons have immoral characteristics simply because many of them display them when committing crimes isn't a valid argument.
More importantly, disenfranchisement for these reasons represents a lack of tolerance, because a person who is less empathetic shouldn't be punished for that. If we refuse to tolerate a lack of empathy because it is immoral, we've reverted to moral absolutism and an undemocratic society.

Contention 2: Voting does not give a felon the opportunity to harm society
Voting is a way for an individual to express his or her opinion. Felons are imprisoned because they have committed crimes that are harmful to society, and so we are suppressing their freedom and being intolerant, but we are doing it to protect innocent people in society from them, and thus we are acting in the interests of the society. However, denying them the right to vote is no longer acting in the interests of society. Voting on issues and for candidates doesn't give felons the opportunity to cause harm to society. They are only given the right to vote on issues that everyone else could also vote for. Therefore the only justification for denying them the right to vote would be if they would vote for a candidate who would harm society, in which case under the Harm Principle all non-felons who would vote for that candidate should also be disenfranchised. The felon is already serving a separate sentence for their crimes, and the right to vote is not directly related to their crime, and the deprivation of it is not necessary for maintaining the democratic society. Therefore, in a democratic society, felons must retain the right to vote or else the government has become intolerant, leading to moral absolutism, which leads to an undemocratic society.

Contention 3: Denying felons the right to vote is a form of suppressing dissent
a) Felons represent a certain portion of society. They have all been imprisoned by society, and therefore may have knowledge or interests that other citizens lack. For example, an ordinary person might vote against any sort of resolution to increase funding to prisons, because they would consider it a waste of their own tax dollars. On the other hand, a felon who has experienced firsthand the poor living conditions of a prison would understand that such a measure is necessary to avoid mistreating felons. Society relies on the expression of opinions of all groups, and may end up mistreating certain groups, even felons, if they are not adequately represented. This would undermine the foundation of a democratic society by harming the liberty of felons and violating the Harm Principle.
b) Felons can often be primarily members of a particular minority or demographic. For example, in the United States, an average of 49% of felons are African-American. This means that African Americans have less representation in the electoral system. This could harm the interests of African-Americans in general because of the reduced voting power. So in the end, denying felons the franchise will do more harm than good.


Block: If felons' votes are capable of harming society, then logically Vermont should be a stinking hellhole. It is not, so granting felons the franchise does not automatically doom society.

some useful quotes about the limitations of democracy

Anthony Arblaster, Democracy [Second Edition], 1994, U. of Minn. Press, defines democracy as popular sovereignty.

[C]learly it cannot be a democratic act for the people to vote away their own power and their own rights.... For democracy to exist, power must remain with the people. If they freely abdicate that power, what they consent to may have popular support, but it is not democracy.... So, in effect, popular sovereignty must be inalienable. [p.88]

The assumption that there is a necessary connection between democracy and freedom is surely correct, even if we take some of the narrower definitions of democracy. For example, even if the essence of democracy is taken to be the process of choosing between elites competing to govern, the very business of choosing can hardly be confined to the visit to the polling booth.... Choice, however limited in scope, implies freedom...

If we adopt the more expansive definition of democracy... the case is even stronger. Democracy as popular power... should be seen as a continuous process of interaction between government and society, with a maximum involvement of the people in public decision-making at every level. [pp. 91-92]

[I]f we look to the people to play a more positive role, freely voicing their demands and hopes, their fears and grievances, as well as introducing ideas and initiating policies, plainly this can only happen in an atmosphere of the greatest freedom and openness, free from any taint of intimidatory anxiety or apprehension as to the possible consequences of speaking out. [p. 92]

Do we have reasonable grounds for excluding persons from the demos? Robert A. Dahl, Democracy, Liberty, and Equality, 1986, Norwegian Univ. Press, argues that we do (an argument that would ground a negative case).

Locke and Rousseau accepted, and Mill defended, the principle that a demos might properly exclude large numbers of adults who are subject to the laws made by the demos. Thus the attempt to ground "participatory democracy" on Mill and his predecessors is fatally flawed. Participation indeed. But only for the qualified! [p. 211]

Citizenship depends on contingent judgments, not categorical rights. And the contingent judgments need not lead to universal inclusion.... That we cannot get around the principle of competence in deciding on the inclusiveness of the demos is decisively demonstrated by the exclusion of children.... Children therefore furnish us with a clear violation of the principle that a government must rest on the consent of the governed, or that no one should be subject to a law not of one's own choosing, or subject to a law made by an association not of one's own choosing. [pp. 212-214]

[more to come]

Felon franchise neg second draft

Neg Case

I negate the resolution.

I accept my opponent's definitions (with the exception of:)
-Democratic: Adjective of the noun democracy, defined as: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

-Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members

-Felon: a person who has committed a felony

-Ought: used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc

-Retain: to keep possession of
(this means that we are talking about felons who are currently serving time in prison, because denying the right to vote while in prison, even if it is restored upon release, violates the definition of retain)

My value for this round is Societal Welfare.
This is the paramount value when talking about a democratic society. In a democratic society, supreme power is in the end vested in the people, not a ruling class. So the welfare of those people, of society as a whole, is very important for ensuring that the society continues to function and remains democratic.

To ensure the welfare of society, we must look to a criterion of the Social Contract.
Under the social contract, members of a society give up certain rights in exchenge for protection of other rights. In a state of nature, there would be no guarenteed rights, because anyone would have the freedom to act as the choose on anyone else. The purpose of the social contract is to maintain the functionality if the society, and thereby ensure the protection of the basic rights of the ctizens. If the social contract is threatened, the safety of society as a whole becomes compromised. Therefore, in order to act in the interests of its citizens and thier welfare, a society must act in defense of its own social contract.


Contention 1: Disenfranchisement is justified on the part of the state

a) The function of voting is to decide laws, or to elect representatives who will create laws. Thus when a felon commits a crime, they have not only violated the social contract, but have broken the very laws that they helped to create. At this point, the state is justified in taking away their right to vote, because otherwise the felons would be helping to create laws that they have shown they will not follow. The best explanation of this in terms of the social contract would be Rawl's concept of duty of fair play. In Moral Problems: A Coursebook, Micheal Palmer explains that duty of fair play means that "if it is socially necessary that everyone behave in a certain way, then it is unfair to the rest if someone gains an advantage by acting otherwise." The rules of society are at the core of the social contract, and must be maintained for the contract, and by extension, the society, to continue to function. Allowing someone who would willingly violate those rules to help decide or alter the rules would be risking harm to the social contract, and thereby risking the rights of all of society.

b) The right to vote is not an inherent right, such as life or liberty. The right to vote is a state-given right, because without the state voting would not exist. As Jason Kuznicki, a political scientist at the Cato Institute, writes,

"Voting is a government-created right; you don’t have a right to vote in the state of nature. The social contract creates voting. By entering into society, you surrender a distinctly limited number of your natural rights, for instance the right to extract restitution forcibly from those who have wronged you. In compensation for giving these up, the state gives you some other rights (like voting, and trial by jury). All the other rights not clearly mentioned in the deal are yours to keep, at least in theory."

This means that because of the nature of the social contract, the state is fully justified in disenfranchising felons because they were given the franchise with the understanding that they would follow their own rules.

Contention 2: If given the franchise, felons would be capable of influencing our legal system in potentially harmful ways
a) Felons would automatically vote for a candidate who promised to release them, even if he candidate would potentially be harmful to society. If the candidate had insufficient respect for the social contract and the laws of the society, then many people would choose not to vote for him or her, ensuring that they don't get elected and harm the society. Felons, on the other hand, who have less respect for the law, would not feel the need to vote against the candidate. Also, felons could have a negative impact on initiatives on the ballot. Would we want a sex offender to be able to vote on an initiative to decrease the time sex offenders must spend in prison? Would they make a rational choice that would help society, or would they simply vote in their own self-interest?

b) Felons are capable of influencing election results. Often times, felons can be the swing vote. For example, consider the Washington State gubernatorial election in 2004. Christine Gregoire won the election by a margin of 133 votes. The republican party filed suit, claiming that many of the votes were cast illegally. In court, they provided evidence that well over 1000 votes had been illegally cast in Washington, many of which were cast by felons. The election results were not overturned because the republicans were unable to prove which way the felons voted. But the point stands that the number of felons can be greater than the margin of victory, thus making felons the swing vote.

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Always useful in LD, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for a much more universal standard of rights, than, say, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. You can use rhetoric from the Declaration to argue that, as a whole, people in democratic societies agree that the values contained in it are good.

the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is an essential LD resource on a variety of philosophical topics. Check out, for example, the article on the justifications for democracy. Lots of great material for the affirmative.

debate study session, Nov. 6 @ TESC

Date: Thursday, Nov. 6
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: The Evergreen State College Library
Goal: research LD and PuFo cases, get critiques on our work.
Stay as long as you can. (The library closes at 10:45)

Vamsi and Grace's French Health Care affirmative

Affirmative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.
There are over 300 million people in America. Of these, 47 million of them, or 16 percent of the population, do not have health care. These people suffer under a society where they are unable to afford essentials, such as health care. Under the French system all residents are provided with basic health care. The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that need to be defined, implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.
Contention 1: The French Health Care System is more affordable than US health care
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in 2005, the United States spent 1.9 trillion dollars on health, whereas France only spent 210 billion. This calculates down to $6 347 per capita and $3036 per capita in the US and France, or almost HALF as much as the US. This directly shows that the French Health Care System is more economically friendly than that of the United States.
Contention 2: The French Health Care System is more effective than US health care
In 2001, the French Health Care System was ranked #1 in the world. On the contrary, the United States of America, took 37th place. Many factors were used to determine these ranks, and in all of these, France outdid the US. For instance, the average Life Expectancy for Females in France is 83.7 years, whereas for in the US it is 80.4. Also, the Infant mortality rate in France is 3.8 deaths per 1000, whereas in the US it is 6.9, or almost double. This is due to the fact that the French Health Care views pregnancy as a precious stage of life. There are months of paid job leave to the mother before and after the baby is born, as well as house calls from nurses to make sure that everything is ready before and after the newborn arrives. Moreover, in 2003, two researchers from the London School of Health and Tropical Medicine challenged the World Health Organization results, and decided to make their own assessment. They made their test on the amenable mortality rate of countries, or basically a measure of deaths that could have been prevented through good health care. Once again, France ranked first (65 deaths per 100,000), and US ranked last (110 deaths per 100,000). Although the US is renowned for its premier Emergency health, France triumphs as the best because it has proven that it is better to prevent a problem, rather than cure.
Contention 3: French health care is given as a human right
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” The US health care system is flawed because it views this right as a financial privilege. Although medicare and medicaid are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough because they only cover certain people. In contrast, this human right is offered in the French Health Care system for the French Health Care system covers all of its residents.

Conclusion:

These three reasons have established that the French Health Care System is superior to the United States Health Care System. Therefore, it is required for the well-being and preservation of the People of the United States of America, that the US Government should implement universal health care modeled after the French System.

Negative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

Capitalism is the basis of the United States of America. It has enabled us to flourish and prosper. Therefore, when it is challenged by a concept that appears to be beneficial to the society, but is subtly detrimental to it, we must protect and preserve this value.
The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that are in need of definitions, those being implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.

Contention 1: The French and US cultures are different
French culture is far different than that of our American culture. While the French is geared more towards quality and simplicity, our society has a higher necessity for convenience. Plenty of things in our society do not work towards the preservation of the human body. There are hundreds of products that people around the world use everyday that are harmful, such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, experiencing sleep deprivation and dehydration, and eating cheap food that can later lead to health hazards, such as atherosclerosis and obesity. Using and abusing these substances is their decision. They hold responsibility for what they put into their body and how they treat it. Therefore, it is ridiculous to assume that after trashing their body their entire life that the government should bail them out. It is their own decisions that have made them that way, not the government. Therefore, the government is not responsible, they are.
Contention 2: The French Health Care system is contrary to capitalism
According to the French Health Care System, health care is provided simply on the basis of residency. This means that anyone, no matter what they do, how much they contribute to society, or who they are, can just walk into a clinic, ask the doctors a few questions, and be reimbursed by the government for the bill. Anyone and everyone. This sounds a lot like communism, a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, society, where all people are treated similarly, by being given the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Fortunately, the United States of America follows capitalism, or an economic system based on private ownership of capital, or wealth. Hence, the adoption of the French Health Care System, would mean the adoption of a socialistic (based on government ownership) structure with a communistic outcome to it, which is contrary to the capitalistic America. Hypothetically, if we even were to implement this system there would be private insurance companies and such that would wish to stay private. Good doctors would then leave the government system to go and work for these private companies, because they would receive more money than the government standard. This would cause a segregation of the quality of doctors available. Those who are wealthy enough to afford the better doctors would receive better coverage. Leaving the less fortunate with the lesser skilled doctors. This is clearly contrary to our country's ideal of inspiration

Contention 3: The French Health Care system is not financially correct for the USA
Lastly, the reason that the French Health Care System is being considered, is because it was ranked #1 in 2001 by the World Health Organization. Agreed, France surpasses the US in health statistics, but that does not warrant a total changeover, simply because it is not practical. France's health expenditure may be lower, but the for the two countries is totally different. US is almost 5 times larger than France in population, and way over 10 times bigger in size. Also, the US environment is different to France's environment.
Moreover, France's Health Care System had a 9 billion dollar deficit last year. If converted equivalent to the USA, this debt would be massive. Also 21% of resident's income taxes go towards France's health care system, and half of the financing for the Health Care plan comes for employer taxes. With our economy is such turmoil, we can't risk raising taxes on the struggling public and their potential employers. Taking into consideration the current economic crisis, any such hefty plan would be impractical.
Conclusion:
These three reasons establish that the French Health Care System is not a correct option for the USA. Therefore, it is obligatory, for the preservation of the United States of America and its beliefs, to vote negative for this resolution.

BLOCK : Health Care is not a right
A major focus of this resolution is the word universal. Universal, as defined before means prevalent over all, or all including. Therefore, this resolution is suggesting a health care system that is provided to everyone, as a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "Everyone has the right to...medical care...". The definition of medical care is professional treatment for illness or injury. On that basis, the USA has cutting edge medical care. What this resolution suggests is health care, not medical care. Where medical care is necessary for the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, health care, or access to a doctor for general check-ups, physical exams, and bad days, is not.

Mr. A's sample "felon voting" Affirmative

Dr. Martin Luther King, while imprisoned in a Birmingham jail, famously wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It was a call to action, and the reason I affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote."

To clarify, I offer the following definitions. "A democratic society" is not any one particular society, but rather any society that possesses fundamentally democratic characteristics. These include--but are not limited to--political equality, universal adult suffrage, direct or representative elections, majority rule, and constitutionally protected rights.

"Ought" expresses not a practical "should" but a moral "must." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's first two definitions capture this well:

1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.
2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.

A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition, is a person convicted of a felony, which is "a serious crime usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death."

To "retain," according the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, is "to keep possession of." The right to vote is the right to cast a ballot in any election in one's area of residence, be it local, state, or national; synonyms include "the franchise" or "suffrage." To sum up: a felon in the affirmative world does not lose the franchise because of a conviction. In the negative world, felons lose the franchise for an unspecified time--even, potentially, for life.

Because the resolution centers on an "ought" claim and concerns citizens who have been convicted of a serious crime, and because democracy is a form of government that respects the moral equivalence of its citizens, we must consider as our primary value Justice, defined as the principle of "to each their due." In a democratic society criminals are due punishment for their crimes, but are also due fair treatment in a legal process that respects their rights. My thesis, essentially, is that we must reject felon disenfranchisement because it is unjust.

How do we clarify the demands of justice? Here we must consider a two-pronged approach, given context of the resolution. In a democratic society, punishment must serve a valid retributive purpose, and it must include safeguards to preserve rights. I'll explain each criterion in its own contention.

My first contention is that denying felons the franchise is irrelevant to the retributive purpose of punishment, and is therefore unjust.

As Richard Lippke writes in "Retributivism and Plea Bargaining," Criminal Justice Ethics, New York: Summer 2006,

[L]egal punishment is to be understood as an institutionalized form of censure for conduct that is morally blameworthy. Criminal offenders, on this account, have not simply acted in ways that are socially disapproved of or contrary to their own interests, but have acted in ways that are morally unjustified. Either they have invaded the moral rights of others or have threatened or attempted to do so, or they have violated legal rules the enforcement of which usefully coordinate complex interactions among citizens or allocate access to scarce resources in ways that are fair. Legal punishment censures offenders' conduct by imposing losses or deprivations on them proportional to the seriousness of their offenses.

The losses of liberty and property are sufficient and rationally connected to the kind of "invasions of moral rights" that offenders have perpetrated; disenfranchisement, by revoking a right unrelated to the nature of the offense, is therefore gratuitous.

Furthermore, the regulatory nature of disenfranchisement is completely divorced from any criminal justice purpose. In "Lock Them up and Throw away the Vote," found in the winter 2005 edition of the Chicago Journal of International Law, Robin Nunn creates a compelling argument to that effect. Ultimately, felon disenfranchisement is worthless, since it is imposed automatically, above and beyond the retributive purpose of criminal punishment. The process ensures the "invisible" nature of disenfranchisement. Nunn writes,

Since statutory law determines whether felon offenders retain their right to vote, criminal disenfranchisement is not imposed by order of a judge as part of a criminal sentence. It is a collateral consequence of conviction that occurs automatically and administratively.

It is the negative's burden to prove that disenfranchisement is not gratuitous. In the absence of such proof, the judge may automatically grant an affirmative victory.

My second contention is that denying felons the franchise destroys the safeguards in a democratic system, and is therefore unjust.

Crime, under any definition, is an offense against morality, with an important qualification: that morality is codified in law created by a democratic process. In other words, in a democracy, laws are not handed down by gods or kings, or derived by purely rational principles. They are hashed out in city councils and courtrooms and legislatures. Thus, it is entirely feasible for democracies to establish unjust laws. Consider Dr. King, cited above, who was imprisoned under obscure statutes for daring to dissent against, of all things, segregating "Jim Crow" laws--laws that, ironically, mirrored felon disenfranchisement statutes created for the same purpose, to deny power to African Americans. Their sad history is relayed in...

Better than anyone, King understood the importance of dissent against unjust laws.

To sum up: a democratic society must treat all citizens--including felons--justly. Since the practice of felon disenfranchisement not only has no retributive purpose, but destroys essential safeguards in a democratic system, it is unjust, and therefore we must affirm the resolution.

how to define the principles of democracy

If you're trying to figure out what the core value of a democratic society is, you might look to the U.S. State Department's analysis.

# Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

# Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.

# Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.

# Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.

# Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

# Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.

# Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.

# Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

# Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

# Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."

Which of these principles, if any, might be violated by denying felons the right to vote--or by allowing them to vote?

Mr. A's sample public forum debate case

A VERY rough draft. Hopefully it's useful as an example.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

Thus, I stand resolved that the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

To clarify today's debate, I offer the following definitions. The United States government is the federal government and its agencies. "Modeled after" means based in large part upon the core principles. In essence, those principles are:
1. Basic coverage for all legal residents.
2. A mixture of private and public programs.
3. Funding based on income taxes.


According to Medical News Today,

The funding and benefits of the French public health insurance system (PHIS), much like Germany's, were originally based on professional activity. The main fund covers 80% of the population. Two other funds cover the self-employed and agricultural workers.

Once varying depending on the fund, disparate reimbursement rates were replaced by uniform rates. The funds are financed by employer and employee contributions, as well as personal income taxes....

The public health insurance system covers about 75% of total health expenditures. Half of the outstanding amount is covered by patients' out-of-pocket payments and the other half is paid by private health insurance companies. These supplementary health insurance policies can be taken out by individuals or groups.

About 85% of the population own such policies.

The United States government should adopt this system for three reasons.

My first contention is that the French system is, by and large, effective and successful.

My second contention is that under our current system, health care costs have soared, leaving millions of Americans un- or underinsured. Lack of access to health care causes infant mortality rates far above those of our European neighbors, and quality-of-life measures below those same neighbors through the increased incidence of disease and death. All of these would be eliminated should the U.S. adopt the French model.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,

Medicaid covers many low-income children, but delaying or forgoing needed care can lead to more serious health problems, making the uninsured more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions. Overall, the uninsured are also less likely to receive preventive care. Researchers estimate that continuous health coverage could decrease premature mortality rates by up to 25% among uninsured adults.

Cost barriers to health care have been growing in the past decade, even among insured adults. But the uninsured have lost the most ground and it impacts even more than their health. The uninsured are twice as likely as the insured to be unable to pay for basic family necessities, like food and housing, due to medical bills—which can quickly grow into medical debt for those with low incomes.

My third and final contention is the moral imperative: health care is a human right. The French system provides basic care for all residents. It is commensurate not only with the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our laws, but with the international understanding that all persons deserve access to medical treatment.

Thus, for these reasons, we not only can, but should implement the French health care system in the United States. Vote affirmative.

student congress legislation, 2008-2009

Student Congress participants, you can download a PDF packet of all of the approved legislation here.

Study up! It's time to gather sources for evidence in your speeches.

labels and links

Hey debaters, notice that I've added labels and links to Anthony's most recent post, and I'm adding a "labels" feature to the sidebar at right. Don't go crazy with labels, or they'll quickly become useless, but if you're smart about them, labels provide a powerful way to organize information.

Potential Neg argument

The current resolution is: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

For neg, the only thing I can think of so far is the social contract; felons didn't uphold their end, so the state doesn't have to uphold its own. However, when I was looking at Mr. Anderson's definitions of democracy, I noticed that most of them say that the people wield supreme power through elected officials or directly.

So here's my line of thought: Initiatives are either voted on by people, or by officials elected by people. So the "supreme power" of the people is basically wielded vicariously. For an individual, that supreme power would be represented by voting. So by allowing felons currently serving time to vote, you've given supreme power to someone whose actions indicate that they will act against the best interests of the society. Is that the kind of person we want to give supreme power to?

Does this sound like a reasonable argument? Or does it sound like basically a re-wording of the social contract argument?

Welcome to Capital Speech and Debate

Welcome to CHS's speech and debate blog. I will be continuing to do extemp and impromptu this year, and possibly an oratory or two. If you need any information on any of these I would be willing to help. As the extemp group looks small this year, feel free to print out any especially interesting or relevant articles.

Welcome to debate!

Fellow debaters and speech event participators,
We are starting a new season, and I can say that I am thrilled to see the new faces of the team and all our old returning members. I hope everyone can find a event that works well for them, and I want to offer my help to anyone interested in any speech events (dual, dramatic or humorous interpretation in particular). I hope to see many of you at Gig Harbor and I look forward to the possibility of going to state this year!

Hanne

LD Debate Captain

Welcome to the Capital High School Debate team's blog. I'll be in charge of the LD debaters along with Anthony and Mr. Anderson. I've been doing LD for 3 years and impromptu for 2, as well as a year of expos. I'm looking forward to this season with everyone, and hope we get a crop of people for LD in the coming years.

Welcome to the CHS Debate Blog

Welcome to the 2008-2009 Capital High School Speech and Debate blog. This blog is for sharing cases, links, and information, as well as discussing ideas. Hopefully this can help us communicate more effectively about LD and other debate events. I look forward to us all going to state and/or nationals this year!

President: Anthony Macuk
Vice-President: August Mattson
Secretary: Hanne Ockert-Axelsson
Treasurer: Nathan Pincus