Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Caleb's Case

Go down 
AuthorMessage
calebs



Number of posts : 12
Registration date : 2007-12-13

PostSubject: Caleb's Case   Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:35 pm

Note: This old version has been removed until further notice (meaning until James locks the site if possible)


Last edited by calebs on Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:28 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calebs



Number of posts : 12
Registration date : 2007-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Caleb's Case   Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:39 pm

this is the new one
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Caleb's Case   Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:22 am

Great case Caleb! I really like some of your approaches and ideas toward the resolution!
I have some ideas and you can take and leave whatever you want.


Quote :
So I was talking to my friend earlier and he was telling me how the governor had told the state police to siphon gas from all cars involved in wrecks for use in his personal cars.

Once again, this group as a whole does such an excellent job with their introductions. Good work and keep it up-it is extremely critical!



Quote :
Ought: is used to say that it is necessary, desirable, or advisable to perform the action expressed in the verb

More: to a greater extent

Highly: in a high position or rank

Value: the worth, importance, or usefulness of something to somebody

Isolationism: a policy of remaining apart from the political affairs of other countries.

Degree of Isolationism: is the idea that a nation at all times upholds the value of isolationism to a certain extent, either more or less so, but normally not to the point of complete isolation or of the complete lack thereof


I would definently include where these definitions came from, especially the more critical terms such as "isolationism" and "degree of isolationism."
Also, the two terms that I crossed out, you probably dont need to define in your case. Perhaps keep them with you just in case you are asked for them, but because of the limit in time that you have, and the simple fact that most people arent going to argue their meaning, I would just exclude them from your case. Again, its whatever you feel comfortable with.



Quote :
In light of this analysis of the resolution, the value or principle through which we can look at the resolution that I will be upholding throughout this round is authority. Authority is defined as “the right or power to enforce rules or give orders.” The reason that I will be upholding authority as my value during this round is because authority allows quick and effective action along with the national sovereignty that provides safety, security, and peace and the ability to be independent.


This is an interesting value, and you can ask anyone that knows me, I'm a fan of original and unique values. But from expeirience I have noted that sometimes it comes back to hurt you worse. I'm not quite clear how or why you believe authority is valuable, especially with the provided definition. Are you talking about authority as in power, or as in leadership? If you remember, Hitler had the "right and power to enforce rules and give orders." He possessed exactly what your value is. Was it valuable? Keep in mind that having the ability to make quick, effective action doesnt imply "valuable" quick and effective action. If you keep the value, I would clarify what you mean by authority and its connection with this resolution.


Quote :
My criterion, or way of reaching my value, is the Constitution. For when we follow the standards set up in the constitution, we find that isolationism is more highly valued, the authority of our nation and of other nations is established and the authority of our nation to uphold the rights of citizens is protected.


Personally, I hate criterions. They seem to be the most useless and confusing part of building a case for me. All my recent cases have been core value cases and for that very reason. Apart from that personal bias, if you use the criterion of the Constitution I think you should include where in the Constitution there are standards that indicate isolationism more highly valued. If you are referring to the reason the Constitution was created, it wasnt created for the reason of isolationism at all. ( at least with the definition you used to define isolationism.) I would definently show those parts of the Constitution and then relate that back to how it produces authority, and then how that authority is derived from isolationism. I would perhaps take one sentence and clearly connect all of those for the judge. Its way easier for the judge to remember that simple and critical statement than a long value/criterion philosophy. I hope that all made sense.


Quote :
Contention 1: Isolationism protects citizens’ rights

Today, according to a textbook on children’s international rights, “Human rights are classified into civil, political, economic, social, cultural rights.” The problem with this definition of human rights is, as Michael Farris so rightly observes, is, “Can you think of an area of law that does not fall within the subject of economic, social, cultural, political, or civil rights? I can’t either.” The impact of this is that the rights of citizens are meaningless because we can be sued by anyone for anything that we do. If we were to isolate ourselves from international law through an affirmative ballot your constitutional rights would be secured and all US citizens would be protected from the threat of international law.


First off, remember to cite which textbook that initial quote comes from.
The main clause here that I would focus in on, is the one that I highlighted in bold. It seems that you have prematurely come to the conclusion that rights become meaningless all because Mike Farris said so. And then it seems you redirect your attention onto isolationism. Perhaps make a clearer transition from the importance of rights and the "best way to protect them". And I might would also find a least one piece of historical evidence to back up this argument. But I love the approach you are taking!




Quote :
Contention 2: Isolationism protects America’s authority

“[On December 22nd] The [UN] General Assembly approved a budget of $4.17 billion, [in spite of US] objections. … The United States, which pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget, made progress in bringing it down to about $4.2 billion.” If you were to do the math you would find, as I have, that that is the equivalent to nearly $1 billion dollars for the US to shoulder alone. Not only is the UN, which was created as part of a treaty, charging the US nearly $1 billion. The have also set up a court to hear cases on international law. The impact here is that the US is making itself subject to an organization that is subtly, but purposefully, creating a one-world government in the name of humanitarianism. If the US were to isolate from the UN through an affirmative ballot, this attempt at global dictatorship would almost certainly fail.

Without going into any in depth initial analysis, my main thing here is that with this contention it would be EXTREMELY helpful for you if you explained why the protection of Americas authority is valuable. It may be obvious to you, but believe me, the judges get way too confused and distracted to depend on them to understand initially. So to be safe I would explain thoroughly why it is so important.



Quote :
Contention 3: Isolationism protects foreign nations and peoples rights and authority

As President Benjamin Harrison once stated, “We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” That said there are times when it is right to go to war and to join in with friends as allies for a short-period of time. However, America is overstepping her bounds when she goes to war to change the policies or system of government that a nation has. Not only are the results bad, America, by doing so, has violated the authority of a nation and the right of its citizens to their form of government and to its policies. The impact of this contention is that through our policy of interventionism, America violates the authority of foreign nations and the rights of their people. If we were to isolate ourselves more and step back from this policy of interventionism through an affirmative ballot, we would protect the authority and rights of the nations and peoples of the world.


My only thought here is that if the US shouldnt play any role in foreign political affairs, than why do we care if it protects foreign nations and their people and authority? Does that make sense?


All in all this is an outstanding case! It definently has potential I would just focus now on gathering physical evidence to include and also preparing yourself against possible arguments against your own case. I would also end with a relevant quote. That usually lightens up the judge at the end.

Good work Caleb and I hope all the colors and information isnt overwhelming! If you need any more thoughts just let me know!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Caleb's Case   

Back to top Go down
 
Caleb's Case
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» a contractor with pending case eligible or qualify to join our bidding?
» Bidders should not have any pending case filed against the SSS????
» BAC disqualifying bidder for losing a labor case before SC
» ICAI to change exam pattern for CA Course...Case Studies to form part of Questions
» Case Study: Obigation Request

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Speech and Debate :: year 2007-early2008 :: Archives.-
Jump to: