College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:19:02 PM *
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 Two: Could Include  (Read 3759 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« on: May 20, 2014, 06:43:48 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 Two: Areas that Could be Included

Leaders: Ryan Galloway, Eric Morris, Gabe Murillo, Heather Walters, Dennis Black

Eric Morris <ermocito@gmail.com>, Ryan Galloway <rwlcgalloway@gmail.com>, gabe murillo <pandagabe@gmail.com>, HeatherWalters <heatherwalters@missouristate.edu>, Dennis Black <ej6436@wayne.edu>
 
Goals:

Look into the narcotics section suggested by the paper.  This would require us to define narcotics, look at the prominent narcotics in terms of AFF/NEG ground, and explore the lit on decrim vs. legalize the various narcotics.  Dennis Black will also head up the Concealed Weapons research.

Also, determine the wisdom of including these other areas from the “could include” section of the paper.  The “Public Order” area is quite interesting in terms of the de facto criminalization of being homeless.  These laws and their enforcement are often done by cities and local areas and they take many forms.  This area could be subdivided or expanded.  It would be great if someone (already in the group or willing to join) would take on just this question.

Should be Considered
Concealed Carry
Drinking Age
HIV Status
Immigration [*if the action is broad enough]
Narcotics
Public Order Offenses

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


« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2014, 09:06:06 PM »

Brian Shah-DeLong was asking on the College Policy fb page if there is a point person on homelessness.  Does this group have someone working primarily on that?  It would be good to have more folks diving in there...
Logged
sarabethbrooks
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2014, 10:32:24 PM »

I would be interested in working with anyone who is working on the public order / homelessness area of the wording if it is still being considered. I'm not on the FB page anymore; is anyone still working on this?
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2014, 11:16:25 AM »

Group 2 and Brian Shah-DeLong are heading this up, check with them.  From the paper--a crucial link (http://www.nlchp.org/Criminalizing_Crisis).  We should work hard to include this in some wordings...

I would be interested in working with anyone who is working on the public order / homelessness area of the wording if it is still being considered. I'm not on the FB page anymore; is anyone still working on this?
Logged
sarabethbrooks
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2014, 02:17:09 PM »

I hit Brian up but didn't hear back, so I've drafted a paper on homelessness on my own. I'm tweaking it right now and I'm going to post it sometime this evening or tomorrow so that it can be modified before the Monday night deadline. Smiley
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2014, 05:29:28 PM »

Narcotics Paper in from Group 2.  Attached.

* Narcotics Paper Final.docx (54.05 KB - downloaded 457 times.)
Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2014, 12:23:02 AM »

I recommend against including some of the other areas where Group 2 hasn't submitted a paper in support. The attached paper has more details.

* Unrecommend Areas.docx (53.05 KB - downloaded 283 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!