College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 03:59:35 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Group One: Must Include  (Read 2318 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« on: May 20, 2014, 06:42:35 PM »

Overview

1. These groups need more people to help them. 

Each group has multiple tasks and the more folks we can get on board, the better.  Please contact the folks listed if you are willing to help out.  It is hard to tell up front which group will need more people and our distribution is not completely even at this point—the bottom line is we could use some folks to join each group below.

2. We could also use more wording papers—either individually authored or from groups. 

It would be best if people did not overlap with the broad areas we will spell out below, but even overlap is not a terrible thing for this process.  If there is a specific resolution you would like to see, put it down on paper and defend it.  If there are more areas you would like to see included, put them down on paper and defend them.  Checking in with the existing wording groups would be a good idea, but isolated research can still be useful research.

3. Moving toward Hester’s model. 

Instead of each wording group working on a little piece of the puzzle and then trying to put all the pieces together during the meeting (which can lead to bizarre sausage or a “make your own adventure” without cohesion, the wording groups should try to defend full resolutions.  Yes, each group has specific questions to research and certain foci to flesh out, but those specifics should be blended into full resolutions if possible.

4. Share and consult. 

The more the better—a few days is not enough time if everyone is learning about each other’s work for the first time at the actual meeting.

5. Due Date

Monday, June 9th. Preferably early in the day.  We need time to go through all the material before the meeting, not to mention travel time.  Early papers are welcome and encouraged.  Please post completed papers in the CEDA Forums.
Details that apply to all (three) groups

1. All the groups should be thinking about “legalize vs. decriminalize” in a number of ways:

a) Which word goes with which area?  The priority is on legalize across the board and determining its modifier (if any).  It may be necessary (hopefully not) to use both verbs in the same wordings in order to match them with the actions, but the definitions seem fluid enough to make that unnecessary.

b) Modifiers for the verbs that work or do not work.  “Substantially/completely/nearly all/etc.”  Herndon has done some extensive work in this area already (and he mentions in the paper he would be willing to do more— hint  ), but we think it will make sense for each group to look into this series of questions. 

c) Is this a place for diversity in the wordings or not? Again, we are currently leaning toward “legalize with a modifier” as the main stem, although we do not want to dismiss “decriminalize with a modifier” as potential aff ground.

d) Look into “legalization and regulation” as well as “remove (all) penalties.”  It is true that the paper is set up as a “negative state action” topic (Regnier on CEDA Forums) which would tend to make regulation negative ground…on the other hand, evidence suggests that legalization and decriminalization can go along with regulation (and may even imply regulation).  Even the reversal of prohibition established a drinking age (which is technically a regulation).  Something to research and contemplate. 

e) If we do use both verbs, how do we phrase it?…here’s a useful post from CEDA Forums:

“You're right, Adam--this is a key question for the verb.  All of the wording groups are going to be diving into this question...the hope is to have a recommendation for each activity along with resolutions that potentially use both...something like:

R:  X,Y, Z, or Q should be fully legalized or H, I, J, or K should be substantially decriminalized.   Yes, very bulky, but coming along...

It does seem likely that selecting a single mechanism (either decriminalization or legalization) will not work uniformly for all of the areas. This will either necessitate decrim attached to areas that work // legalization attached to its own areas or choosing the most ripe areas and constructing a monstrosity of a resolution that adapts to each of the areas....

f) yes, there will be overlap because all the groups are looking into these component of the wording—that’s ok.  We need multiple perspectives on this and it can help to prevent cross-pollination at times.
2. Suggestions.

As much as possible, include your recommendations and reservations, alternative phrasings, additional definitions, citations, and more work on where the debates you are advocating would evolve.

3. Communal approach.

The more work we do, the better the topics and the better the season.  “holding back” your research at this early stage is not only bad karma (which matters), it is also antithetical to the educational goals of the entire activity.  Find something interesting or useful outside of your area?—include it or pass it on to someone who can use it.

Group One: Areas that Must be Included

Leaders: Ryan Wash, Patrick Waldinger, Paul Leader

Patrick Waldinger <dinger@gmail.com>, "Ryan Wash" <washrd13@wfu.edu>, Paul Leader (leaderdb8@hotmail.com)

Goals:

Determine phrasing for the five areas we should include in all the wordings.  Are those phrasings clear or should we think about some diversity there?  Try to arrange phrasings in terms of narrow to broad.   Does “legalize” fit all five?  In other words, provide more information on the legalize vs. decriminalize question and their modifiers.  Some important questions are: marijuana (use, possession, production, copy a state law, etc.?); Gambling (modify with on-line?); Prostitution or sex work or other?; Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, Physician Assisted Suicide, Suicide?

Must be Included
Marijuana
Online Gambling
Organ & Tissue Sales
Physician Assisted Suicide
Prostitution

Logged
Dinger
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2014, 10:54:40 PM »

Here is our work on the "Must Include" areas.


* Group 1 Paper - Must Include.docx (90.18 KB - downloaded 839 times.)
Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2014, 02:37:19 PM »

The CSA lists use the term "marihuana" since that was the term in the 1937 law.
Also, Geoff Lundeen mentioned a legalization card, which is here.
Organ sales implies a regulatory system - the federal barrier is the National Organ Transplant Act.

I expect to update the combined document at the end of the afternoon.

* Day 1 Cards - Ermo.docx (37.19 KB - downloaded 361 times.)
Logged
Pages: [1]
  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!