I'm about to debate my school's debate champion. He made it to the nationals tournament. I need you guys to question my points and tell me if it's good or not. I'm arguing for the affirmative. The topic is: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. Contentions = reasons why to support the case Subpoint = elaborations on a contention Values and definitions = What the framework is or what we argue around Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified
Contention #1 The state is a fallible, imperfect system
In his debate with Michel Foucault, Noah Chomsky says: “The state could define civil disobedience and may be wrong in doing so.” The power to make laws doesn't imply justice or even correctness because laws are never absolute and could be refined, revoked or annulled. For example, committing the crime of running a red traffic light to stop a madman from machine gunning a junction is morally justified even though it may be illegal.
Subpoint A: The state's imperfection can also be highlighted by DNA proving fallible, i;e not guaranteed to convince. According to npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433/-great-pause-among-forensic-scientists-as-dna-proves-fallible it was guaranteed that DNA matched on a probability of a Million:1 now it could also be a probability of 30:1 meaning the likely hood of DNA left at a crime scene belongs to the accused could also belong to another person. The state’s power to convict and ultimately legislation weaken as a result of this scientific finding.
Contention #2 If the law is criminal we must act to stop it in spite of public dissent.
It's also proper to prevent criminal acts of the State. Noah Chomsky: “What the state regards as illegal the individual regards as legal because the individual regards the state as criminal.” Take the Snowden leaks for example. 64% of people disagree with his decision, especially the state and its supporters. Yet it was morally justified to Snowden and his supporters because the State was acting in a criminal and clandestine manner. This brings us back to our value and definition of morally justified. If there is a slim chance of the State being even remotely criminal then it is morally justified to disobey the state because of the value.
Contention #3
Civil disobedience preserves democracy when no other method of protest works. People protest in order to obtain a purer form of justice when the laws are unjust.
Value: Martin Luther King sought equality and suffrage, George Washington sought liberty and justice for all... it is impossible to narrow one value for this resolution because the individual could hope to achieve several or just one. Therefore the value are the ends or results (moral justification) which justify the means or deeds (civil disobedience).
Value Criterion: The criterion for the value is Resistance. What the ends hope to achieve is measured by the act of doing so. An example of this is the Boston Tea Party and what it sought to gain which ultimately was independence or revolution. Another example is Rosa Park’s refusal to get off her bus in the 1960’s. While Rosa did not intentionally want to make a political statement others soon followed suit in copycat cases causing a resistance against this specific law.
Civil disobedience: An act of nonviolent, illegal activity with the intention of disobeying laws as either a political or social statement; not merely for discord. Civil disobedience can be organized or unorganized and is never about observing social norms.
Democracy: U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as:
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people”
Morally Justified: What the individual fundamentally values. It can be freedom, justice, preservation of life, money, etc. If an officer pulls over a pregnant women speeding to the hospital, he is morally justified to give her a police escort and not giver her a ticket even though the women broke the law.
(2/2) I might not win this
Samuel Wright
i think you should just kys instead op
Aaron Cruz
Do me a favor please? C'mon dude you can't do this
Kevin James
>I need you guys to question my points and tell me if it's good or not If you need help from Veeky Forums, you've already lost.
Luke Moore
What defines a law to be criminal? Things are being defined as cirminal if laws forbid them. Are there supra national laws that go above normal laws which decide what is a just or an unjust law?
I would much rather defend the other side of this debate tbqh.
Nicholas Foster
You won already user desu
Jeremiah Diaz
Please my only other option is r*dd*t and those guys are losers. They don't have half the memes or intelligence like lit does Check contention 1 and the value. Ty famalam
Ian Barnes
Is this how Americans debate? Do you just mention an eminent figure saying something that might or might not prove their point and call it an argument? And are these only abridged versions of the summaries of your arguments? Or this is it?
Eli Edwards
this is it. american debate is a joke, you just go up on a stage and namedrop articles (dont even have to be scholarly, literally mass media) that vaguely relate/support your point and then the other guy does the same thing
there's no rhetoric or oratory skill involved. it's autistic af
Okay, what's the story behind this video? And have they really won a US national tournament? On which grounds?
Anthony Fisher
>Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified Just bring in your copy of The Ego and Its Own and say, "Morality is a spook you faggots."
It works on here.
Kayden White
We debate philosophy and cite authorative figures but it's what they're saying not who says it if that makes sense. What you see is what you get, the actual debate happens when you cross examine the opponent and then you make a rebuttal toward their cross X, and then the affirmative makes a cross X and the opponent makes a rebuttal. This is varsity debate but I'm in novice so there's 40 minutes of normal speaking between the two speakers. Basically in varsity there's a time limit so you're better off making a bunch of points
William Wright
>Noah Chomsky
I'm not an expert at this and have never done debate, but I don't see your argument that convictions might be mistaken to have anything to do with civil disobedience, where there is 1) no question that a law is being broken and 2) a debate only about the morality of breaking the law and not whether or not people should be convicted for it.
I also think your example of a good place to be civil-disobedient might be more effective if it were less exaggerated and more one of the historical examples of good civil disobedience.
Logan Phillips
>Noah Chomsky Wew lad
Carter Foster
What in the fuck was that? It sounded like crack babble.
Aaron Anderson
>but it's what they're saying not who says it if that makes sense This makes sense if you are quoting someone every once in a while, while never losing sigh of context. Instead you start literally every proposition of yours with a quote, which means that it's a mechanic procedure (have they taught you to do so, or is it an idea of yours?). It also means that you are limited by what respected intellectuals have said so far, and that you have no way to escape this paradigm, for your usage of quotes is entirely dogmatical.
>What you see is what you get Sad.
Camden Collins
She's an ENTP alright...
Nathan Diaz
There's a loop in this video
It's not great anyways, but mostly they just say "uh" a lot for some reason and I guess they're going for some sort of style. I'm sure if you saw the transcript it would be fine.
Charles Torres
Cut me some slack my man this is my first tournament Ty
Bentley Morales
Ah so the man is trying his hand at Lincoln-Douglas Debate?
Wyatt Wright
>Debate competition They turn it into a rap battle.
Robert Watson
How the FUCK could you argue on the side that nearly everyone agrees with and still lose? This should be a cake walk OP. All your contentions are shit though, toss them out and start over with some that are easier for the Normies to understand. Just pretend you are debating in front of a ignorant kid with ADHD. Make a lot of appeals to emotion and 'the right side of history.' Make it about Trump and Hitler and white supremacism. Point out that even democracy can be unjust and evil, and aren't entirely accountable to the people since not everyone votes (or CAN vote). Paint yourself as the lone egalitarian hero standing up against a bigoted, racist, cruel government. Mention that the state has sterilized people and oppressed blacks under the rule of democracy. Ask your opponent directly if he would condone the mass extermination of Jews if Trump ordered them into death camps. There should be NO WAY for you to lose this OP, practically everyone agrees that civil disobedience is morally justified. But judging by your absolutely autistic contentions and your complete lack of confidence, I think, out of anyone, you might be incompetent to fuck this up.
Wyatt Carter
>Cut me some slack my man You're supposed to challenge a champion debator and you're asking me to cut you some slack? Oh boy.
Jordan Foster
Debate, not challenge. He was supposed to show me how it was supposed to go.
Jacob Wright
good bait
Colton Rodriguez
>sophistry
Asher Lee
What? No!
Hunter Reed
site more famous old people like george washington and foucault. maybe a ben franklin quote or thomas jefferson. debate people also really seem to like thomas paine. so maybe quote some thomas paine at them
