|
|
|
| Debate Round 1 |
Topic: The United States should significantly change its Federal election system
Gov: Vincent Huynh
Opp: YourMom
Judges: Idle and Madgenius |
|
Vassar
Administrator
 
Posts: 327
Real name: Matt Vassar
Location: Stanford, California
School: Freelance Coach and Judge (Unaffiliated) |
 |
Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« on: Jun 25th, 2005, 11:42pm » |
 Report
 Quote  Modify
|
This is the thread where the debate between Vincent Huynh and YourMom will take place.
Participants should indicate within this thread when they are ready for the resolution to be announced.
|
|
 IP Logged |
Mindlessly pouring hours of my life into coding this board, coding as though the world depended on it...
|
|
|
igaboj
Newbie
n00b
  
Posts: 9
Real name: Vincent Huynh
Location: Sunnyvale, California
School: Wilcox |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (
« Reply #1 on: Jun 26th, 2005, 10:00am » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Ready here.
-Vince H.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2005, 10:04am by igaboj » |
IP Logged |
It's pronounced "Eye-guh-boe-jay"
|
|
|
YourMom
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #2 on: Jun 26th, 2005, 9:27pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
YourMom is ready for action.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Vassar
Administrator
Posts: 327
Real name: Matt Vassar
Location: Stanford, California
School: Freelance Coach and Judge (Unaffiliated) |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (
« Reply #3 on: Jun 26th, 2005, 10:02pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Topic: The United States should significantly change its Federal election system
|
|
IP Logged |
Mindlessly pouring hours of my life into coding this board, coding as though the world depended on it...
|
|
|
Vincent Huynh
Guest
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #4 on: Jun 27th, 2005, 9:02pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Hello everyone, I'd first like to start off by thanking you all for being here today. The issue we are facing is the resolution, "The United States should change it's federal election system; as the government side, we would like to define the united states as the United States Government, and federal election system as the current electoral college used to elect the president. All other words will be defined as what we know them as. For today's debate, the value will be "representation".
The Founding Fathers came to form this nation under the concept, "Government for the people, by the people," however, we never followed through with this. The current electoral college system has a number of flaws, that in the past, has prevented this concept of Government from comming true.
Normally, this is a situation that a society would face only in a corrupt nation with a corrupt government; however, currently, this is a situation the American people have to deal with in the US. As we all know, in the election of 2000, such was the case, when President Bush won the presidency, while his opponent Al Gore gained more votes and approval from the majority of the US citizens. Rather than counting the votes of the citizens, it was the votes of the small elite group of the electoral college that determined who would become the president of the United States; not what the founding fathers had in mind for their new nation. By empowering the people with a vote that counts, we achieve this value of representation, and for all the reasons above I stronly urge a government vote.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
YourMom
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #5 on: Jun 28th, 2005, 12:59am » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Cross Examination of PMC:
1.) What, in your advocacy, are the founding principles of the nation?
2.) Why do you believe the Founders put the electoral college into their plan if it wasn’t in their vision?
3.) Could you cite from your case the specific harms you are talking about in case and paste in the text where you offer a plan to solve for them?
4.) What do you believe are the burdens for debaters in this round?
5.) What issues do you need to win in order to win the round?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
igaboj
Newbie
n00b
Posts: 9
Real name: Vincent Huynh
Location: Sunnyvale, California
School: Wilcox |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #6 on: Jun 28th, 2005, 10:32am » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
1. Represantation for the people
2. It was a mistake that they assumed this electoral college system would work perfectly, however, as we all know, eventually, it's flaws become apparent.
3. This is parliamentary debate; there are no plans, or harms. Our job as debaters is to argue the merits and disadvantage of each side. As the government, we are simply arguing it would be better to abolish the electoral college.
4. To argue the merits of their side, and prove that their side better achieves the value.
5. To prove your side better achieves the value.
|
|
IP Logged |
It's pronounced "Eye-guh-boe-jay"
|
|
|
YourMom
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #7 on: Jun 28th, 2005, 10:07pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
I negate the resolution: The United States should significantly change its federal election system and agree with the standard of upholding representation.
Change Interpretation: As my opponent does not define the word “change”, I offer the following definition from common usage: to cause to be different; to alter. Change is a transition process by which an object A becomes an object B but all the while the object exists. For example, the phrase changing clothes means that a person is putting on a new outfit but both before and after the change, the person is wearing clothes. Hence, the resolution requires that both before and after the affirmative plan, an election system at the federal level must exist. Because my opponent defined the federal election system as the Electoral College, he is stuck with having an electoral college. The impacts are:
1.) You can turn all affirmative arguments about abolishing the electoral college because they are negative ground. Only the negative can abolish the Electoral College because it can do more than change or reform it. In CX, the affirmative conceded that abolishing the Electoral College is what he is trying to do. In this case, he has already lost the round.
2.) The affirmative inherently harms representative democracy because he must necessarily endorse a federal election system. Federal systems take power away from the people. National politicians usually do not represent the interests of any own locality having to compromise between different localities in their constituency. Furthermore, they tend to be less accountable than local politicians because they are removed from the locality they represent.
3.) Only the negative can achieve true representative democracy because I can advocate abolishing the electoral college and having a completely states rights world. The negative can have a world where a federal election system doesn’t exist and there are only local politicians who directly represent their locality. In this view, almost all power resides with the states. A federal government need not exist unless the states choose to support one. Thus, I can achieve the standard of representation better than he can because he is trapped within the limitations of a national system. My counterplan is competitive with his position because you cannot change the electoral system and abolish it at the same time.
Abuse: Even if you don’t buy the change interpretation, you cannot vote off my opponent’s case because he fails to provide a concrete outline his changes. The government fails to sufficiently define how he hopes to increase the representative ability of the Electoral College. There are a billion ways the Electoral College could be made more representative. He could shift his advocacy to any of these positions taken from the infinite spectrum of positions he could uphold with his current advocacy:
A. We should allow the popular vote to trump the Electoral vote
B. Electors that fail to vote along the party lines of their constituents ought be publicly beheaded.
C. The popular vote and electoral vote should be put into a mathematical formula to determine the president. Both should be used as criteria for determining the president.
Debating the resolution without the affirmative defining fair and sufficient ground for himself is bad for several reasons. First, education is harmed because, due to the vagueness of his case, the affirmative can virtually adopt a new position statement for every speech he gives. The predictable element of debate is destroyed and thus any hope for a decent discussion. This is an apriori resolution to vote negative as the reason (according to Mr. Vassar) that this online debate tournament was created was to allow students to practice their debate skills during the summer. Hence, even if other motivations for debate exist (such as winning), the primary purpose of this debate is education and my opponent harms it. Second, negative ground is unfairly destroyed, as I continually have to adapt to a moving target. I must thus load speeches with preempts in order to trap the moving affirmative which blurs the round and makes it much harder to judge. The affirmative had the chance to develop a cohesive position in his first constructive – don’t let him completely shift his position in the next speech because that would be unpredictably abusive. If he planned to shift his advocacy, he should have indicated he would do so in his first constructive.
The impact of this is that my opponent is stuck in a double bind. Either he
A. Adopts the position statement he invented in CX (it appears no where in case) that he is trying to abolish the Electoral College and thus links into the change interpretation turn
-OR-
B. He shifts his advocacy unpredictably in the following speech and my abuse arguments are proven true.
But even if you accept his ambiguous interpretation, there are several reasons why the status quo is preferable to changing the Electoral system. Note that my opponent, while continually claiming the Electoral College system is flawed, has not warranted any specific flaws. Don’t believe him unless he actually shows you what those flaws are. The two assertions he makes are that the current Electoral College system is 1.) not representative of the people (example: Bush v Gore) and 2.) is inconsistent with the vision of the founders of this great country. I will now address those issues.
Disadvantage: Lawyer Mania. My opponent tells you that the Bush v Gore incident would have been more justly resolved had there been no electoral college. However, without the Electoral College, Bush and Gore would have been able to call recounts and challenge ballot totals in every locality they could lay their hands on. Lawyers would have been fighting all over America in their local regions with little hope for a clear decision on the victor. If there wasn’t for the current Electoral College system, smart lawyers could call for recounts all over the nation and the election winner would be hopelessly indeterminable. The consolidated decision of the Electoral College made is so that there was only one Bush v Gore case rather than a billion tiny cases being fought at different localities. A single case was more easily resolvable then a billion small cases. The current system minimizes the extent to which politicians can turn elections into legal battles. This helps representation, as elections are more likely to be determined by the people than by lawyers.
My opponent may argue that Electoral College vote doesn’t represent the people. However, since electors are chosen to vote along the lines of the people, the Electoral College is generally, except for a few rare cases, a good indicator of the people. Why fix something that isn’t broken?
Disadvantage: Minority States Representation harmed. My opponent tells you that the founders wanted a democracy and an electoral college hurts that. In truth, the founders wanted a republican form of government. One has to look no further than the pledge of allegiance and the word “republic” (not democracy) to notice this. The reason the founders created the Electoral College was to guard against the excesses of democracy and mob rule. If the popular vote was used to elect the president, the large states would be able to easily out vote the small states. Politicians would concentrate on large cities and concentrated areas and would have no incentive to visit, campaign, and react to the interests of rural areas. The Electoral College was created as a side constraint on the majority in order to allow minority views to be acknowledged. Thanks to the Electoral College as a moderating force in the U.S., presidents have to appeal to a wide variety of interests in order to be elected. The current Electoral College system maximizes representation because it ensures that both minorities and majorities have a voice in government. Remember, the Electoral College doesn’t mean the majority can’t get it their way – it just gives minority voices a fair hearing in government. The current situation is preferable to getting rid of the Electoral College because the cases where the popular vote and the electoral vote have come into conflict are relatively few but the benefits to minority representation have been enormous.
Conclusion/Evaluatory Framework: There are three main components to this round – the change definition, abuse arguments, and the disadvantages. The abuse arguments should be evaluated first as they come before the standard. If the educational value or the fairness of the debate is destroyed, there is no reason even to debate and thus no reason to look at the standard of representation. However, if you don’t buy the abuse arguments, you have two options. You could look at the change definition, which is a case turn and a competitive counterplan to the affirmative, or you could default to the two disadvantages that show how the status quo maximizes representation.
For these reasons, I urge an opposition vote.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 28th, 2005, 10:10pm by YourMom » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Vincent Huynh
Guest
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #8 on: Jun 29th, 2005, 10:08am » |
Report
Quote Modify
Remove
|
1. Could you please explain how the government team could change advocacy, and become a "moving target"?
2. Couldn't the individual votes simply be counted much like they are for the popular vote results we all see on the news?
3. In an electoral college system, don't the large states still "trump" the minority states because of their larger number of votes?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
YourMom
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #9 on: Jun 29th, 2005, 2:38pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
1.
My objection is with your position’s vagueness and unpredictability. Simply put, I don’t know what you’re advocating. In your constructive, you mention that the Electoral College is flawed but you don’t warrant what those flaws are. In CX you tell me that you want to abolish the Electoral College but nowhere in case do you specifically mention that. Also, I don’t see your clear-cut alternative – aka what about the Electoral College you want to change and how you plan to do it. There are many ways you could change the Electoral College to make it more representative but your job as the affirmative is to advocate a certain position statement that makes the resolution more specific so we can actually debate.
2.
Yes, but, as I stated, adopting the popular vote system would harm incentives for politicians to appeal to minorities. If the popular vote system was used, politicians would only feel obligated to campaign in New York, California, and a handful of large states. They wouldn’t have to tailor to smaller states which is a considerable portion of the U.S. Politicians should appeal (or at least give a fair hearing) to the needs of people everywhere and represent both majorities and minorities.
3.
Yes, but I argue that in the Electoral College system, politicians have incentives to give minorities a fair hearing because minority states are given more weight. If the popular vote was used, politicians could win elections only by appealing to large, centralized interests. As the Bush v Gore election showed, an elected president must have a greater consensus of country than their opponent. While I am a Democrat, I think Bush was elected because he represented both minority and majority interests. A president would not represent “the people” unless he represented both majorities and minorities.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
igaboj
Newbie
n00b
Posts: 9
Real name: Vincent Huynh
Location: Sunnyvale, California
School: Wilcox |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #10 on: Jun 30th, 2005, 1:46pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
I would first like to clear up that nowhere in my speech, or cross examination answers did I offer a plan to abolish the electoral college; the government team is simply arguing that the electoral college should be changed because it's current flaws, and the job of the opposition is simply to to argue the electoral college should not be changed. The government cannot "suddenly change advocacy," because there are no plans. Under this circumstance, none of the opposition's arguments of abuse and ground stand.
The on case arguments my opponent brings up in his case are completely non-unique. The first argument about lawyers exists no matter how an election system works; so long as votes are concerned, lawyers and such will always be fighting over votes; even if you leave the electoral college unchanged, as we have seen in some past elections.
The 2nd on case argument brought by my opponent states that represenation of minority states will be harmed if the electoral college system is changed; however, even with the current electoral college system and it's flaws, we still see the minority states with less representation. Why? Because of their population, they recieve less electoral votes.
For all these points I strongly urge a Government voet.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2005, 1:54pm by igaboj » |
IP Logged |
It's pronounced "Eye-guh-boe-jay"
|
|
|
YourMom
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #11 on: Jul 1st, 2005, 3:03am » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Roadmap: In order to keep the round clear, I will structure this rebuttal in terms of “easy ways out of the round” and “hard ways out of the round”. If you find the easy ways compelling enough, you can stop reading my rant and save your time. Now, I won’t ask for you to sign your ballot right there because I respect my opponent’s right to his final speech but I will say “do the right thing.” If you want to think harder than you need to - don’t say I didn’t warn you!
Easy Way #1: Double Bind
My opponent links into my double bind argument because he shifts his advocacy. He claims that “nowhere in [his] speech, or cross examination answers did [he] offer a plan to abolish the Electoral College” and that “the government team is arguing the Electoral College should be changed.” This is a denial that he ever advocated for the abolition of the Electoral College. However, in cross examination question #3, when I asked him what his position was he stated “we are simply arguing it would be better to abolish the Electoral College.” This shows how he has shifted his advocacy from speech to speech. At this point, you can extend my first impact off of the abuse analysis which states that vague, shifting advocacies destroy the predictability of debate and thus harm education. Education matters in this round because this online tournament is meant to foster education as established in the last speech. The issue of education comes before the standard because if my opponent harms the very nature of the tournament, there is no point in even debating. Furthermore, you can extend my second impact of abuse which states that fairness in the debate is destroyed as the negative continually has to adapt to a vague, ever changing advocacy. If fairness is destroyed, the debate is destroyed and thus is an apriori reason to negate.
Note that if my opponent shifts his advocacy to abolishing the Electoral College, not only does he link again to this argument, he links to the first impact of the change analysis which shows why he would be making arguments for the negative.
Easy Way #2: Generic Abuse Arguments
My opponent mishandles my in case abuse arguments. He argues that because he is not endorsing a plan, he cannot shift advocacy. However, my abuse arguments are not dependent on him running a plan. My objections were with his position statement and not necessarily the presence of a plan. My argument was that because his original position statement is so vague, he could cite a different disadvantage of the Electoral College in each speech and I wouldn’t be able to sufficiently respond to his advocacy. While the affirmative doesn’t have to endorse a plan in Parliamentary Debate, he does have to adopt a position statement that makes the resolution more specific and the negative consents is fair to debate against. As I’ve repeated over and over, there are a billion ways to advocate against the Electoral College but the affirmative has to choose a specific position (aka a few disadvantages of the current system and what his advocacy will do to change it). The affirmative advocacy fails to meet these requirements. This abuse variant has the same impacts to education and fairness as my abuse argument in the double bind.
Easy Way #3: No Offense. If you look at the last affirmative speech, you will notice that he does not extend any offense from his first speech. All of the rhetoric in his last speech is defensive and he spends time only repeating vague claims about the resolution and arguing that my arguments are nonunique. At this point, even if I don’t win any offensive arguments, you can vote negative on presumption because there is no offensive reason to affirm. But if you don’t like voting on presumption, here are a couple of justifications you could use.
A.
He claims that the current system has flaws but he fails to tell you what those flaws are. Because he hasn’t told you what exactly he is criticizing about the current system, it could be argued he tacitly consents its okay and you negate. It would be unfair to the negative to assume flaws in the Electoral College that are not specifically mentioned.
B.
Also, because he hasn’t provided a clear alternative worldview, the infinite risk of the affirmative outweighs any potential benefit because you don’t know exactly what the affirmative advocacy is. You negate because, at very least, you have a clearer picture of what it means to negate than you know what you’re getting into on the affirmative.
C.
Furthermore, my opponent hasn’t tried to give you an alternative and is only criticizing my position. He has not met his burden of proof as the affirmative but I’ve met my burden of refutation as the negative.
This “no offense” argument is apriori because, unless the affirmative proves he had offense in his last speech, the round isn’t conducive to a standards type evaluation because they are no competing affirmative arguments to weigh against negative arguments. A proof of offense entails that the affirmative cites the actual words in his last speech that show a clear claim, warrant, and impact to an offense argument along with an explanation of how the rhetoric is offensive.
Don’t allow my opponent to create new offensive arguments – he already lost his chance as he has dropped most of the substance of the round. This is my last speech and I will not have a chance to refute anything anymore.
At this point, you can “do the right thing” or you can read on a couple thousand more words about why I win the standard of representation.
Distinction between Democracy and Representation: The impacts to representation in the round may become muddled due to the lack of a good definition of what it means to maximize representation. I would now like to take some time to analyze what exactly it means. Representation is the idea that everyone has a vote that counts – politicians try to account for everybody. Democracy means the majority vote makes the decision. Note, that these two concepts are not synonymous and there is a certain antagonism between the two. For example, the majority in a democracy could vote to disenfranchise the minority. Thus, upholding the principle of majority rule does not necessarily maximize representation. Instead, the founders knew that in order to maximize representation, they had to place constraints on the rule of the majority. In this view, a person does not have to be part of the majority in order to be represented.
Easy Way #4: Change Interpretation
My opponent completely drops my change analysis and thus makes it truth for the round. The analysis explains that, in the resolution, the word change implies that the affirmative cannot abolish the Electoral College and can only reform it. This means that the affirmative must necessarily endorse a federal election system. As I explained in my first and second impact to the change analysis, only the negative can best maximize representation. This is because the negative can abolish the federal electoral system and have a completely states rights world. In this world, there would only be local politicians who represent their citizenry. There would be no need for a national government unless the states chose to maintain one. This counterplan maximizes representation because, in a states rights system, politicians don’t have to compromise between communities with differing viewpoints. For example, if a national politician represents two localities which have polarized views on the right to bear arms, the politician would have to compromise between the two views. If politics was made completely local, a state politician could represent their constituency more accurately. The unique advantage of a states right world to the current division of federal/state powers would be to allow direct representation on all issues rather than those exclusively reserved for the states. The word change in the resolution makes the states rights counterplan competitive with the affirmative as I explained previously.
Burdens Analysis: My opponent tells you that the negative has to defend the status quo but doesn’t provide a warrant for it. While I do agree that the negative has the obligation to at least try to offer some sort of alternative (though the offering of an alternative is not binding as the primary duty of the negative is to refute), I’d argue the negative isn’t locked into defending the status quo. The negative only has to prove the resolution false and can use counterplans, critiques, and anything at their disposal to do it. Just as the affirmative can do virtually anything within the rules of parliamentary debate (run a framework, a narrative, a performance) to affirm the resolution, the negative has the same privileges.
But even if I’m tied to defending the status quo, here are reasons why the status quo is preferable to any changes to the Electoral College.
Alright, I warned you! Fine, keep reading.
Hard Way #1: Lawyer Mania. My opponent completely mishandles this argument. He argues that it is nonunique because lawyers can always contest elections. However, this was not my point at all. My argument was that lawyers would be more easily able to skew election results on the affirmative. If the popular vote was used, there would be more places to sue as the big election would consist of many smaller elections. Even if five medium size cities had questionable election results, it would be harder to determine the winner as it’s harder to resolve five election cases than it is to resolve one consolidated election case. The Electoral College makes it so that there is only one place to sue and thus once case to resolve. Given that all elections can be turned into legal battles, the status quo minimizes the extent to which lawyers can manipulate elections than if the system were to change. Thus, negating maximizes representation because elections are more likely to be determined by people than by lawyers.
Hard Way #2: Minority States Representation.
My opponent responds to my argument by saying that majorities can outvote minorities regardless of whether the Electoral College is changed or not. Once again, he completely misses the argument. As I stated in CX, politicians have incentives to give minorities a fair hearing because minority states are given more weight. The popular vote difference is usually more extreme than the electoral vote difference. While minorities may be completely destroyed in the popular vote, they have a chance to have their interests represented in the Electoral Vote. Because minorities together make up a considerable amount of the U.S. and because of the added weight of the Electoral College, politicians are more likely to give minorities a fair hearing and tailor policies toward them. This maximizes representation because it means both minorities and majorities are represented. At best, my opponent can only represent the majority and thus cannot maximize representation.
Remember though, that my advocacy does not disenfranchise the majority as they can still get their way. It just gives incentives to politicians to appeal to minorities.
Presidential candidates, when elected, have to represent the entire country. Candidates that are elected usually have a wider consensus across the nation among majorities and minorities than their opponent.
Hard Way #3: Weighing. Let’s pretend for a second that I have lost all issues discussed thus far in the round. You can now extend my analysis in the second paragraph of the lawyer mania section in my last speech. It tells you that the Electoral College is a good indicator of people except for a few rare cases. My opponent has to have a really good reason for why to change the current election system. Why fix something that works 99% of the time. Even if we could change the Electoral College, there must be a very good reason to do so. The implication is that the affirmative benefits to representation must be significantly greater than the status quo in order to justify overturning such a reliable system.
Remember though, this consideration comes after all the easy ways and other hard ways. Only if the round is really that close, take this into consideration. I realize it is a bit ad hoc so if you don’t like this, feel free to reject it.
But of course, you took the easy way out, right?
For these reasons, I urge a negative vote. Thank you for judging!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
igaboj
Newbie
n00b
Posts: 9
Real name: Vincent Huynh
Location: Sunnyvale, California
School: Wilcox |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #12 on: Jul 2nd, 2005, 12:49pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Sorry for the late reply; phone line was dead all last night, it came back, but only for about 30 seconds. Fortunately it should work now.
I would like to start off by apologizing to the opposition; I was not aware of my CX answer. Now, to my on case arguments.
The situation with lawyers and suing for votes brought up by the opposition sounds valid if votes come in very small numbers like they present. But when votes come from an entire population, fighting for a single vote like my opponent claims, would be futile. When votes come in smaller amounts like in the electoral college, such could be possibl.e
My opponent claims that minority states will lose representation, when the popular vote is counted. Like I had stated earlier this round, the minority states are still outvoted by the votes of the majority, so politicians still don't appeal to them as much. Even if this is the case; it's nothing to be worried about, as it's simply the greatest good for the greatest number.
|
|
IP Logged |
It's pronounced "Eye-guh-boe-jay"
|
|
|
Vassar
Administrator
Posts: 327
Real name: Matt Vassar
Location: Stanford, California
School: Freelance Coach and Judge (Unaffiliated) |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (
« Reply #13 on: Jul 2nd, 2005, 12:59pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
Round complete. Idle and Madgenius should post their ballots ASAP.
|
|
IP Logged |
Mindlessly pouring hours of my life into coding this board, coding as though the world depended on it...
|
|
|
Madgenius
Newbie
On that point!
Posts: 3
Real name: Abram Rose
Location: St. Louis, MO
School: Washington University |
|
Re: Rd. 1: Vincent Huynh [Gov] vs. YourMom [Opp] (Judges: Idle, Madgenius)
« Reply #14 on: Jul 2nd, 2005, 9:09pm » |
Report
Quote Modify
|
I have loads of work to do, so I can spend much time discussing the line-by-line. OPP wins on vagueness when GOV fails to address much of the issues that OPP brings up.
I'll discuss all the issues in more detail later.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Core forum software powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4+ for NPDL!
Heavily modified for NPDL by Matt Vassar
Original forum software copyright © 2000-2006 Yet another Bulletin Board
NPDL web site copyright © 2004-2006 Matt Vassar
National Parliamentary Debate League copyright © 2005-2006 NPDL Board of Trustees
Special thanks to the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence for their help in creating our Constitution and Rules.
|
|
Home 
Rankings 
Constitution 
Board of Trustees 
Calendar 
Member Map 
Gallery
Forum
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Author