College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 03:55:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
  Print  
Author Topic: Pre-Wording Paper Thread  (Read 31401 times)
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #120 on: May 29, 2014, 02:18:21 PM »

...which would leave gambling on reservations as one of the only viable areas for a federal only gambling aff...and there you are dealing with the BIA and some other issues that make it distinct.

There really isn't much of a USFG topic for Online Gambling. December 23, 2011, the DOJ released a memo that declared that the Wire Act only applied to sports betting. There's pretty universal agreement in the literature that this means all other internet gambling is reserved for the states to do with it as they please, across state and national boundaries.

Even then, I am doubtful there is much of an aff. Tribes are already expanding Class II online gaming operations with state governments after the DOJ memo, and those compacts don't require any approval from the federal government. Even the meat of the topic, Class III operations that cover electronic games of chance, would only require federal approval of any compact with a state for the tribes to proceed. Given the DOJ memo, it doesn't seem likely the FG is going to turn down those compacts.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #121 on: May 29, 2014, 02:20:48 PM »

me
1. if the USFG only agent makes prostitution a bad aff, I'm not sure we can do that.  We need a baseline wording option (the smallest of the options) that allows for all 5 of the major areas to be effective affs.  That's not a full endorsement of "line-by-line fidelity," but it is a place where we can easily determine the intent of the paper. 

jeff
Is your argument that if ANY of the stem/verb wordings potentially "leaves" out one of the five "core" areas, then it shouldn't be on the topic ballot? This position I find odd for a number of reasons:
1) Voting for controversy area is very quick compared to voting for resolution wording. Theoretically, that allows the community more time to decide on particular wordings.

me
Not really--both are rushed.  Plus, I don't think we can have varying degrees of fidelity based on length of contemplation.  We are not going to create bad topics in order to sat true to the paper, but if we can create good topics that work to reach the goals outlines in the controversy paper, we will.

jeff
2) It is highly subjective to what it means to "leave" out an area. Are there potential affs in the area if the res used "decrim"? Sure. Would there be more/different affs in the same area if the res used "legalize"? That seems to be a reason to include both wordings on the ballot.

me
We should assume any wording that is on the ballot is a wording that will be selected.  If there are very few ways to run an aff under the area in question, that is a "game-over" problem with the stem in my opinion.  There are 8 other votes on the committee of course.

jeff
3) The topic paper even mentioned "the areas of the topic are obviously something that should be phrased properly, vetted, and put to a vote."

me
Agreed, but the minimum inclusion should be the five specified as "must include."  The way to phrase those five and what others to add would be open for deliberation, as well as the agent and the stem as they relate to the five + more areas.

jeff
4) The difference in how decrim/legalize is contextualized for each of the "core" areas means some of them will inevitably be favored over another in terms of affirmative solvency and breadth/depth of advantage.

me
Yes, but varying degrees of prioritization still means each is robust and viable (admittedly that is open to interpretation).  From the limited work and consultations I have had thus far, "legalize" does not preclude any of the five areas from being debated effectively whereas "Federal only" agents would 9at least for prostitution and probably PAS (especially without the Supreme Court) and organs as well.  Not to mention that MJ is big on the state level (although viable on a federal level).
Logged
tomogorman
Newbie
*
Posts: 48


« Reply #122 on: May 29, 2014, 04:05:37 PM »

Question for the gambling research people - would just repealing the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act be enough to solve - I haven't researched this area yet, but I personally remember there being a significant amount of online gambling prior to 2006.

Re: Fidelity to paper
I am not sure you have a choice but to compromise on fidelity. The paper clearly considers USFG alone as an option - I would say the default option. And clearly wanted the core five areas as well. I don't think the paper had come to terms with how difficult it would be for the USFG to act in some areas. I am still ultimately in favor of a States + Feds actor, but I think it would be appropriate to put a USFG alone version on the ballot assuming it would be viable for debates even if the affs in just prostitution aren't that good. (If affs in prostitution, PAS, and gambling are all kind of screwed if stuck w/ USFG that would probably be too far).  Does anyone else have USFG ideas - particularly ones that would involve Congress as opposed to courts?
Logged
pleader
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #123 on: May 29, 2014, 11:04:02 PM »

Resolved: All the territory known as the United States will legalize or decriminalize, one or more of the following:........

just a thought


Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #124 on: May 30, 2014, 11:33:22 AM »

Tom - from my reading thus far, the folks writing about UIGEA after the 2011 DOJ memo are making arguments about legal clarity, which they think requires a piece of regulating legislation. Removing the UIGEA would seem to amplify those questions of legal clarity rather than fixing them. So it would seem regulation would need to be allowed in for the aff to really have a USFG specific gambling case.
Logged
BruceNajor
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #125 on: May 30, 2014, 04:20:32 PM »

I am in the process of finishing up a "United States should" topic paper (to be compared to a "United States federal government" wording, not to be compared to a passive voice wording, and I hope to answer your question from earlier in the thread in the paper Kevin) but for those interested in online gambling, I have found the following as it related to USFG vs States:

MANDATING states allow gambling would be unprecedented and probably impossible
“Game On for Internet Gambling: With Federal Approval, States Line Up to Place Their Bets” CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW, NELSON ROSE, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School; Visiting Professor, University of Macau; B.A., University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., Harvard Law School. & REBECCA BOLIN, Resident Fellow, Yale Law School; B.A., Rice University; J.D., Yale Law School, VOLUME 45 DECEMBER 2012 NUMBER 2

Meanwhile, Utah passed a bill, which clarifies that online gambling remains illegal in the state of Utah for bettors and providers.215 The sponsor of the bill claims it is an effort to preserve Utah’s no-exceptions anti-gambling position, even in the face of what advocates see as potential Congressional interference through federal laws.216 The bill requires Utah to opt out of any national gambling efforts and claims to preempt any federal law allowing Internet gambling in Utah.217 After signing the bill, Utah Governor Gary Herbert sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker John Boehner opposing federal efforts to legalize Internet gambling.218 The political and legal reality is that there is no possibility that Congress would ever force Utah to accept any form of legal gambling. In the history of the United States, only PASPA has attempted to overrule states on their public policies toward gambling, and even that statute looked to the states and locked in their decisions toward sports betting. Every other bill ever introduced in Congress involving gambling has expressly allowed states to decide for themselves what their gambling policies will be.


So the aff would have to rely on states accepting – the problem is, despite States being allowed to legalize most forms of online gambling, they CHOOSE not to, creating a huge road block to legalization.  If you want to gamble on the internet now, but can’t, blame your state governments, not the federal government
“Game On for Internet Gambling: With Federal Approval, States Line Up to Place Their Bets” CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW, NELSON ROSE, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School; Visiting Professor, University of Macau; B.A., University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., Harvard Law School. & REBECCA BOLIN, Resident Fellow, Yale Law School; B.A., Rice University; J.D., Yale Law School, VOLUME 45 DECEMBER 2012 NUMBER 2

This surprise change in law from the DOJ will spur states to pass new legislation expanding gambling operations. State legislatures are looking at how much revenue they can raise by changing their laws to license Internet gambling. Nevada is furthest along, having issued regulations for Internet poker.178 These regulations were revised in February 2012, and are now complete.179 Over twenty casino operators, gaming equipment makers, and service providers have applied for intrastate Internet licenses, and expect to be vetted starting this summer.180 Nevada’s eleven-member Gaming Policy Committee, which has not met since 1984, has planned several meetings for 2012 to address the state’s interest in online gaming.181 Nevada has issued Internet gaming licenses, and online poker has been temporarily approved for as early as fall 2012.182 However, Nevada is unlikely to license true Internet casinos as long as the state’s brick and mortar casinos fear the competition. The U.S. Virgin Islands has legislation in place to allow Internet casinos.183 Now that the DOJ and the Wire Act are no longer barriers, it seems the territory’s regulators could start issuing licenses. However, the U.S. Virgin Islands has a small population and successful local gaming operators are trying to expand land-based casinos in new areas of the islands where competition from giant outside companies is likely unwelcome.184 Therefore, there has been little movement, even after the Christmas announcement. But another small jurisdiction, Delaware, has jumped at the opportunity to expand gambling onto the Internet. The state already relies on tax revenue from legal gambling for seven percent of the state budget, representing its fourth largest income source.185 Although it is the third state or territory to pass enabling legislation, behind Nevada and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Delaware will be the first to have functioning full casinos online.186 In June 2012, Delaware legalized Internet video lottery and games like poker, blackjack, and roulette.187 This expansion of gambling was intended to place Delaware at the forefront, to compete with expanded land-based gambling in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.188 Of course, the regulations are immense and the licensing fees are staggering for operators of Internet games.189 Delaware has not worked out the regulatory oversight for private operators, but hopes to have online lottery operational by early 2013.190 In New Jersey, the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved intrastate online gaming in early 2011, by a vote of 32-4 in the State Senate and 63-11 in the Assembly, but the bill was vetoed by Republican Governor Chris Christie.191 At that time, Governor Christie called the bill a “legal fiction” because bets could take place throughout New Jersey, though the New Jersey Constitution restricts gambling to Atlantic City, except horseracing and lottery tickets.192 Democratic State Senator Raymond Lesniak has continued to push for increased sports betting and online betting.193 Future bills may not limit online patrons to New Jersey, as his original bill did, but could accept players from any other state and nation where Internet gambling is legal. Online gambling could also be allowed through constitutional amendment, to eliminate limitation to Atlantic City. Governor Christie, already depicted as governor of Atlantic City, has backed the New Jersey legislature’s desire to increase legal gambling revenue and has vowed to start new sports betting operations, despite the federal prohibition in PASPA.194 He has made it clear that he will support expanded gambling operations, even when the federal law prohibits state-authorized betting parlors. The newest New Jersey Internet gambling bill passed its Senate Committee April 3, 2012, and is up for vote shortly.195 This bill allows casinos to operate gambling operations in Atlantic City, taking bets from throughout the state on games approved by regulatory authorities with a ten percent tax on gross revenues.196 Lesniak believes this bill is essential to the survival of Atlantic City casinos, but it has been postponed until Fall 2012.197 However, New Jersey did pass a law, signed by Governor Christie, allowing gambling on mobile devices within Atlantic City casinos.198 In Massachusetts, Norfolk Representative Daniel Winslow proposed Amendment 827 to the State’s 2012 budget which would allow licenses for Internet poker.199 The licenses would cost ten million dollars plus taxes on gross revenue.200 Representative Winslow stated, “Internet poker is a game of skill that fits our high tech job profile perfectly.”201 The amendment has prompted a commission examining the licenses and has been endorsed by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson.202 Iowa was closest to legalizing Internet poker until its legislation was defeated in March 2012. This is the third year the Legislature has considered the issue.203 In 2011, the Iowa Legislature commissioned a study on legalizing Internet gambling, which concluded that intrastate poker could be operated safely and would raise money. The Iowa bill would have allowed licensees to operate intrastate poker, with between twenty-two and twenty-four percent of gross revenue to the state.204 The bill passed in the Iowa Senate, by a vote of 29-20, but the House failed to consider it in time, claiming little interest in the bill.205 The Iowa Legislature meets for only one hundred days, and the bill will likely be reintroduced in 2013. In California, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg joined with Senator Roderick Wright to introduce S.B. 1463 on the last day for legislation to be proposed this year, February 24, 2012.206 The bill authorizes intrastate Internet gambling with ten-year licenses regulated by state authorities.207 The license allows “games commonly referred to as poker” for two years, and then all games approved by state administrators and the state legislature.208 Only operators who have had a California gaming license for three years are eligible to apply.209 The bill requires a nonrefundable license fee of $30,000,000, plus ten percent of gross revenues, plus regulatory fees to be determined by the California Department of Justice.210 This bill was pulled before it made it to a committee hearing.211 Hawaii and Mississippi saw bills fail quickly in 2012. Mississippi’s online gambling statute would have allowed all casino games online, but died quickly in committee.212 Hawaii’s online gambling bill lowered the gambling age to eighteen and allowed lottery and skill-based games.213 Maryland lawmakers are not even considering a bill, after a brief memo mention garnered media attention in the state.214
Logged

Bruce Najor
Wayne State Debate
BruceNajor[at]Gmail[dot]com
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #126 on: May 31, 2014, 01:20:20 PM »

Sounds great, Bruce!  The distinctions between "nation" and "state" as compared to "nation-state" may be useful critique ground to consider...I would think that "United States" would be more likely to be seen as a "nation" or "nation-state" while any agent with "government" would be more closely linked to "state" or "nation-state."  There is also the issue of "government" vs. "governments."  Homi Bhabha among others is really good on the nation/state question.  Something to keep in mind and a framing question for the US agent that would benefit from some creativity and shaking up the "USFG" overload we have seen during the past decade.  If it helps us provide an agent in every debate that can access the issues of whether the laws permit or discourage certain activities, we should offer that wording on the slate.

I am in the process of finishing up a "United States should" topic paper (to be compared to a "United States federal government" wording, not to be compared to a passive voice wording, and I hope to answer your question from earlier in the thread in the paper Kevin) but for those interested in online gambling, I have found the following as it related to USFG vs States:


« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 01:49:16 PM by kevin kuswa » Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #127 on: June 01, 2014, 01:00:33 PM »

Trying to conceptualize the largest possible versions of the topic area--not necessarily for the ballot, but in an attempt to think about the full spectrum and to create a phrase or two that encapsulates more than one of the activities in question.

Instead of saying R: One or more of the following should be legalized: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc. etc.,

something like....R: Many (more than one major/all/nearly all) consensual criminal activities should be legalized.

thoughts?  thanks.
Logged
jonahfeldman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96


« Reply #128 on: June 01, 2014, 05:00:01 PM »

If I'm correctly understanding what you've suggested, then the aff would be forced to legalize more than one criminal activity.  That puts the aff in a strategically difficult spot and will make for scattered 1AC's.  Rarely does anyone choose the "or more" option in a list resolution for that reason.



Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #129 on: June 01, 2014, 10:26:39 PM »

Agreed--just looking for the bigger ends of the spectrum.  It would not be hard to make it "legalize one major consensual activity" or something along those lines to prevent the tiny "jaywalking" affs.  Looking for some feedback on wordings that would include far more than just the five activities set up as the baseline without simply listing 100 things.  I think the five areas are great, but if there is really only one major aff under most of the areas, I would think it would be better to have a wording with about 50-100 affs, some better than others and many contingent on various topicality interpretations.  getting folks to vote for the broad wording is almost impossible, but it would be nice to know what the most expansive version is overall.

If I'm correctly understanding what you've suggested, then the aff would be forced to legalize more than one criminal activity.  That puts the aff in a strategically difficult spot and will make for scattered 1AC's.  Rarely does anyone choose the "or more" option in a list resolution for that reason.

Logged
Paul Elliott Johnson
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #130 on: June 02, 2014, 03:11:31 AM »

I agree with Jonah: I am with you on the more aff flexibility ethos but, that kind of shared stem/multiple content requirement would be a non-starter on the ballot because of PICS. Anyone who was around on Courts probably agrees more than 5 areas might not be a disaster, especially if decrim/legalize are rather limited verbs, but, i would also worry about how lit matches up with the multiple advocacy thing too.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #131 on: June 02, 2014, 04:24:34 AM »

Yes, agreed--but skip the question of "one or more activities" for a second--what's the thought on picking one activity to legalize among a larger class of crimes?  In other words, can we find a way to indicate a list of types of crimes without having to actually list all 30, 50, 75, etc.?  We can word it to allow affs to just deal with one--the question is the size of the list and how to phrase very large lists in other ways.

I agree with Jonah: I am with you on the more aff flexibility ethos but, that kind of shared stem/multiple content requirement would be a non-starter on the ballot because of PICS. Anyone who was around on Courts probably agrees more than 5 areas might not be a disaster, especially if decrim/legalize are rather limited verbs, but, i would also worry about how lit matches up with the multiple advocacy thing too.
Logged
Paul Elliott Johnson
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #132 on: June 02, 2014, 05:15:22 AM »

Seems productive.
Logged
jonahfeldman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96


« Reply #133 on: June 02, 2014, 06:30:16 AM »

Gotcha, I'm with you now.

You may want to consider "public order crime" instead for the bigger end of the spectrum:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-order-crime/
Public order crime means criminal acts that deviate from society's general ideas of normal social behavior and moral values. Public order crimes are considered as harmful to the public good and disruptive to a community's daily life. For example, prostitution, paraphilia, pornography, alcohol and drug offenses are public order crimes. Further, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime.


Consensual crime might not be big enough for the drugs cases because drug dealing is a consensual crime, but drug use is a victimless crime, and I'm not sure if drug production would fall into either category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime
A consensual crime is a public-order crime that involves more than one participant, all of whom give their consent as willing participants in an activity that is unlawful. Legislative bodies and interest groups sometimes rationalize the criminalization of consensual activity because they feel it offends cultural norms, or because one of the parties to the activity is considered a "victim" despite their informed consent.[1]
Consensual crimes are sometimes described as crimes in which the victim is the state, the judicial system, or society at large and so affect the general (sometimes ideological or cultural) interests of the system, such as common sexual morality.[who?] Victimless crimes, while similar, typically involve acts that do not involve multiple persons. Drug use is typically considered a victimless crime whereas the sale of drugs between two or more persons would be a consensual crime. The fact that no persons come forward to claim injury has essentially made the two terms interchangeable in common use.
















Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #134 on: June 02, 2014, 10:52:31 AM »

Thanks--I wasn't very clear from the outset.  This is a big help.  I came across public order crime--and the idea of a "victimless crime"--both of which get at the kind of larger descriptor that might help.  I think all 5 of the main topic area activities could be defined under this label (organ selling maybe not), and I like the moralizing play on public health as a topicality issue, but we need to make sure to include the drug issue without also including every crime there is or could be.  The second person in some of the drug crimes involves the producer or distributor, but that is probably separate from use or consumption (even though related).  The line between "against the state as a group crime" (consensual) and "one person behaving in a way that does not hurt others" (victimless) is very interesting, indeed.  Thanks for the insight.  Kevin

Gotcha, I'm with you now.

You may want to consider "public order crime" instead for the bigger end of the spectrum:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-order-crime/
Public order crime means criminal acts that deviate from society's general ideas of normal social behavior and moral values. Public order crimes are considered as harmful to the public good and disruptive to a community's daily life. For example, prostitution, paraphilia, pornography, alcohol and drug offenses are public order crimes. Further, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime.


Consensual crime might not be big enough for the drugs cases because drug dealing is a consensual crime, but drug use is a victimless crime, and I'm not sure if drug production would fall into either category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime
A consensual crime is a public-order crime that involves more than one participant, all of whom give their consent as willing participants in an activity that is unlawful. Legislative bodies and interest groups sometimes rationalize the criminalization of consensual activity because they feel it offends cultural norms, or because one of the parties to the activity is considered a "victim" despite their informed consent.[1]
Consensual crimes are sometimes described as crimes in which the victim is the state, the judicial system, or society at large and so affect the general (sometimes ideological or cultural) interests of the system, such as common sexual morality.[who?] Victimless crimes, while similar, typically involve acts that do not involve multiple persons. Drug use is typically considered a victimless crime whereas the sale of drugs between two or more persons would be a consensual crime. The fact that no persons come forward to claim injury has essentially made the two terms interchangeable in common use.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!