Help me with this debate topic! - General

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. This is lincoln douglas debate, so it's a moral debate, so the core subject here should be about the morality of the issue at hand. The sides of debate are AFF (Who agree with the statement) or NEG (who disagree with the statement). So facepunch, what do you think? I was thinking of an argument against utilitarian deterrence theory.

If a baby knowingly commits murder, I wouldn't charge it as an adult because it's soooo darned cute! XD

L.D. isn't always a debate about morality. Make an argument about the impracticality of treating juveniles as adults. When a teenager is pulled over for speeding, he's sent to traffic school. That doesn't happen with adults who get cited for speeding. The theory behind that is "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Talk about how with juveniles, there's a reasonable chance for rehabilitation rather than permanent incarceration.

This sounds an awful lot like homework to me

Here's a debate: Never post a thread again. Signed.

Sending a child to prison makes it certain that he's going to come out one hardened guy. Causing more crime

Are we doing your homework for you?

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26678307]Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. This is lincoln douglas debate, so it's a moral debate, so the core subject here should be about the morality of the issue at hand. The sides of debate are AFF (Who agree with the statement) or NEG (who disagree with the statement). So facepunch, what do you think? I was thinking of an argument against utilitarian deterrence theory.[/QUOTE] Look guy. the main objective of the legal system and prisons is not to just punish people, slap them when theyve done something wrong, its there to keep them from ever doing it again. Sending kids to prison would never turn them into stable and functioning members of society. Write that and your teacher will give you an A, maybe even blow you.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;26678508]Sending a child to prison makes it certain that he's going to come out one hardened guy. Causing more crime[/QUOTE] This guy is on to something. Instead of sending them to prison so they can become more hardened and go out later and commit more crime, we could solve everything by just plain executing them and prevent future crime :downs:

Jesus christ Jiyoon, just stop.

[QUOTE=TropicalV2;26678358]L.D. isn't always a debate about morality. Make an argument about the impracticality of treating juveniles as adults. When a teenager is pulled over for speeding, he's sent to traffic school. That doesn't happen with adults who get cited for speeding. The theory behind that is "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Talk about how with juveniles, there's a reasonable chance for rehabilitation rather than permanent incarceration.[/QUOTE] Practicality is the cancer killing LD. The base of all practical arguments should at least be utilitarianism [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] For those of you who think this is homework: [url]http://www.nflonline.org/StudentResources/Topics[/url] Read: lincoln douglas. This is extracurricular that I get no credit for. The National Forensic League comes up with the topic, not me.

I used to do Student Congress, but I did a bit of LD. First you gotta establish the definitions of all the words that you want to use to help establish your contentions. Secondly, there are a bunch of fancy words that I can't remember that are supposed to establish morality and why your side should be passed. Thirdly I can't remember. And never use utilitarianism, its a bad base if you are doing a morality resolution. [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] My old debate coach actually submitted a couple resolutions that got accepted, like the 2009 one about letting one person die to save others thingy.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;26679375]I used to do Student Congress, but I did a bit of LD. First you gotta establish the definitions of all the words that you want to use to help establish your contentions. Secondly, there are a bunch of fancy words that I can't remember that are supposed to establish morality and why your side should be passed. [/quote] I know all that, I just wanted facepunch to form their own argument by their own definitions just for the inspiration of the ideas that might come into this thread. [quote]Thirdly I can't remember.[/quote] Probably about the Value Criterion [quote] And never use utilitarianism, its a bad base if you are doing a morality resolution.[/QUOTE] Utilitarianism is so easy to refute if you use the categorical imperative and define Ought as morally dutiful or obligatory.

According to Black's Law dictionary, ought is used when something should or shouldn't be moral, and should is something that should be done.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;26679490]According to Black's Law dictionary, ought is used when something should or shouldn't be moral, and should is something that should be done.[/QUOTE] Lemme see the source

Once during a Congress round I cited the constitution and some dumbass manchild asked me for my source. I literally pulled out a copy of the constitution and read it as my next speech.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;26679557]Once during a Congress round I cited the constitution and some dumbass manchild asked me for my source. I literally pulled out a copy of the constitution and read it as my next speech.[/QUOTE] We can't use the constitution unless the resolution specifically says the US, because we try to be more philosophic and based on logic rather than policies, because LD isn't about what plan we should impliment, that's Policy. LD is about examining the morals of each side, which was the primary part of the original lincoln douglas debates where they examined the morality of slavery [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberman77883;26679557]Once during a Congress round I cited the constitution and some dumbass manchild asked me for my source. I literally pulled out a copy of the constitution and read it as my next speech.[/QUOTE] but also I mean link me to the blackwaters dictionary

Start off with deffinitions. September/October's topic: Resolved: states ought not possess nuclear weapons. This topic had the word "Possess" in it, which has a secondary meaning of: To have sex with [url="http://www.wordreference.com/definition/possess"]Deffinition 5. -WordReference[/url] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possess"]Deffinition 5. - Dictionary.com[/url] So we structured a case around not having sex with nuclear weapons. Then the debate mainly turns to a debate on the deffinitions. Deffinitions are important!

[QUOTE=JerryCougrawr;26680476]Start off with deffinitions. September/October's topic: Resolved: states ought not possess nuclear weapons. This topic had the word "Possess" in it, which has a secondary meaning of: To have sex with [url="http://www.wordreference.com/definition/possess"]Deffinition 5. -WordReference[/url] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possess"]Deffinition 5. - Dictionary.com[/url] So we structured a case around not having sex with nuclear weapons. Then the debate mainly turns to a debate on the deffinitions. Deffinitions are important![/QUOTE] I hated doing LD just cause of this, people always fucked around with definitions.

PF is where it is at. Policy just takes to much time. Here is what I got. I mean I do PF so I won't be able to actually help you but our resolution is about plea bargaining. Resolved:In the US, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system PRO big charges dropped threats of larger charges lesser charges public doesn't like it CON makes system work option for benefit brings sensitive cases forward gets bigger wins/criminals smaller sentences=smaller incarceration $fees$

No. Do your own Lincoln Douglas work. ...I'm personally going to try the justice angle, actually. "Giving each his due." [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=TropicalV2;26678358]L.D. isn't always a debate about morality. Make an argument about the impracticality of treating juveniles as adults. When a teenager is pulled over for speeding, he's sent to traffic school. That doesn't happen with adults who get cited for speeding. The theory behind that is "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Talk about how with juveniles, there's a reasonable chance for rehabilitation rather than permanent incarceration.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't always be a debate of morality, but that's damn near always how it ends up.

[QUOTE=postmanX3;26680953]No. Do your own Lincoln Douglas work. ...I'm personally going to try the justice angle, actually. "Giving each his due." [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] It shouldn't always be a debate of morality, but that's damn near always how it ends up.[/QUOTE] quite the contrary, it should almost always be a moral debate, but the fucking policy judges keep coming over and voting based on practicality, not logic or reason. I got a judge that said "Using definitions is no excuse for not making a case". What the fuck, LD is all about definitions.

you could use the moral of "everyone deserves a second chance, especially minors"

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;26681408]you could use the moral of "everyone deserves a second chance, especially minors"[/QUOTE] I would have to justify that with the resolution and use a specific moral philosophy.

If you need someone to help you debate for you, then you've already failed. Drop out and become a wino.

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26681451]I would have to justify that with the resolution and use a specific moral philosophy.[/QUOTE] or you could say that kids sent to prison will come out and commit more crime, not to mention since they cant get there life back on track they will have to go on welfare.

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26681357]quite the contrary, it should almost always be a moral debate, but the fucking policy judges keep coming over and voting based on practicality, not logic or reason. I got a judge that said "Using definitions is no excuse for not making a case". What the fuck, LD is all about definitions.[/QUOTE] Well I guess the way it's structured, yeah, LD has to be a moral debate. But it leads to some monumentally weird/dumb arguments being made. As for the judge's remark, well your entire case shouldn't be focused on proving/disproving your/your opponent's definitions, but, yes, they are very, very important.

It's very hard to affirm on this topic. I would say either go for parametrics or deterrent effect. Deterrent effect is kinda stupid (mainly because many kids that go to juvenile court aren't even aware that it exists, they think they will go to the normal adult court) but if you parametricize, maybe go individuals who were fully conscious of what they were doing and its implications, or to psychopaths, who commonly aren't "malleable" and thus can't be rehabilitated. If you go to psychopaths, you may get fucked on it though. It can easily be argued that punishing psychopaths for being psychopaths is unjust, and they don't deserve the harsh environment of prison. Neg, on the other hand, should be easy. Prison rape/ suicide, unintended but inevitable punishment, done.

Or you could all stop being pansies and start doing Forensics. Fuck man, Impromptu n Extemp that's where the shits at.

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26681451]I would have to justify that with the resolution and use a specific moral philosophy.[/QUOTE] im suggesting it to you, you can figure out how to justify it.