PR-01--04--LWBeauclairJ v. ISamuel

[Rebeccah Sharp]

The resolution is:


THBT: "Something wicked this way comes"

[LWBeauclair]

Hey, Ian being as it's 11pm can I have until like 1pm tomorrow? So like 14 hours?
-Me

[thedancingbear]

Yes.

-Me

[LWBeauclair]

Thanks much. Um-Amy, not that I won't check back anyway, but how do I subscribe to this thread? See y'all tomorrow at 1ish.
-the original me (he's just borrowing it)

[LWBeauclair]

THBT Something evil this way comes.
Ladies and Gentlemen (a.k.a, the as of now, anonymous panel) it is with great pleasure that I approach this topic for my first NB online debate. Oh, and a hearty thanks to Ian for participating as well.

I’d like to begin by previewing where I’m going with this-Procedural Stuff: First, believes that-to have a firm conviction that something is true; next, Something evil- a loss of standards concerning the issue of human rights protections (specifically in regards to the Geneva Conventions (GC)). This way comes- a movement toward the elimination of the afore mentioned GC. I would ask that you look at this via two scopes: First, United States political trends; and secondly, public sentiment. In other words if I can convince you that human rights protections as supported by the Geneva Conventions are on there way out in the eyes of US politicians and public- then I win. If not, I’ll try to find a political reason you should vote for me before the rebuttals. “Game Politics” are legit right?

With that Contention #1: Synopsis of the GC and human rights provisions therein
1)GC -was adopted August 12 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the protection of victims of war.
2) The Conventions specifically outlines that all “high contracting members” must follow the convention guidelines at all times.
3) The Conventions prohibit the following:
a) Violence to life and person; i.e., murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
(These get expanded upon in detail in later chapters of the GC, but I’m going to assume you are fairly familiar with the details, or will look them up).
b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment
c) the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized persons.
d) prisoners of war may not give up these rights.
4) The Conventions require that copies of the GC be posted in prisoners native languages at all locations where detainees are held.
5) US is a contracting member

Contention#2: A first step toward the coming of evil: GTMO
1) At present 660 internees from 42 nations are being held at GTMO as a result of the war on terror.
2) Most of the detainees qualify as prisoners of war under the GC.
3) Their GC protections are not being afforded to them by the US.
a) limited or no access to the US legal system.
b) Specifically the right of Habeas Corpus
4) The US is justifying the denial of GC protections based on “they are terrorists and don’t count” rhetoric.
a) The Bush Administration has stated that in the interest of National security they can hold these people for so long as they are considered a threat.
b) (this will flow to my Abu Garib contention in a sec)- The afore mentioned administration has said that some acts of torture are justified in interrogations of prisoners. Specifically the waterboard method. This is in direct conflict with GC provisions.
5) The US has choosen to violate the GC in the case of GTMO- i.e., the evil is a comin’.

Contention #3: The evil’s getting closer- Abu Garib
1) The Prisoners at Abu Garib are being held by US troops, and by extension are entitled to provisions of POWs under the GC.
2) Their rights via the GC are being violated by said troops:
a) can anyone say- nasty photos?
b) The GC was not posted at Abu Garib
c) Flow across water torture
3) Bush administration (while apologizing for the photos) has argued that harsh interrogation methods are often necessary and effective (NPR- Diane Ream show, and I think Morning edition recently- in case you were wondering). This clearly violates the GC and shows the US movement away from respecting them.

Contention #4: Public sentiment mirrors the Administration
1) Case and point- the war on terror. Bush says do it and the public eventually follows suit.
2) In comparison to the international community the US populous is relatively unmoved/disturbed by the GC violations. Esp., in regards to Abu Garib
3) If you consider that the US Soldiers count as part of the US public, then you also link to the trend toward evil. They took the photos of the GC violations they were committing, for the heck of it. Can we say- the evil is fast approaching.

Under view: The implicit future of the GC and wrap up stuff.
At this point it should be obvious that the US is both politically and ideologically moving away from the GC. The result of this implicit policy-shift will be the unmaking of the GC, in other words the US is fast moving to the point of eliminating the GC. They have already cheapened the value and significance by suggesting that the GC can be applied, or not, from situation to situation (i.e. the terrorist rhetoric). Thus, it stands to reason that it is only a matter of time before the GC is completely eliminated either in practice or in policy. So... With all of that I suggest that THBT something evil this way comes.

[thedancingbear]

1. Just to be clear, it's your claim that this retreat from the Geneva Convention is "wicked," correct? So if I prove the actions in question are good, then I would negate the resolution and win? Or are you going to go for some "oh, but it's good to be bad" thing in the next speech?

2. The prevention of "humiliating and degrading treatment" provision interests me. It seems ... um ... well, could you describe in some detail just what that means?

3. Gimme a minute.

4. Okay. Why do the prisoners at Guantanamo qualify as POWs?

5. You say that public sentiment mirrors the administration, but how do you reconcile this with the massive public outcry regarding the abuses in Iraqi prisons? It's been on the front page of every major newspaper and newsweekly and, last I checked, it wasn't Lynndie England centerfolds in there.

[LWBeauclair]

1) I said the " the loss of standards concerning human rights protections outlined in the GC was evil(AKA wicked= same thing in the round)," And no I am not going to switch my advocacy, that would be wrong.

2) We've talked about this, the whole amendment thing.

3) Usually none :angel

4) Because I said so :P . No really they do...Part 1 general provisions; Article 4. You've got to work for it a little.

5) If you listened to the senate/congressional hearings re:Abu Garib the rhetoric is the same as the administrations. "The pictures are sad, but you have to understand the conditions over there". If you happened to catch the C-Span broadcasts or NPR the week the pictures came out, you heard a lot of the same--- "I can understand how people [the soldiers] could snap to that behavior: Their friends are dying, bodies of US civilians are being mutilated and hung from bridges, etc. In short there's a trend to justify-- (also regarding the sources you mentioned, I'd check the editorials. Editorials=public sentiment too).

I also didn't say that they always happily mirrored the Administration, but ultimately they go with the trends and agree to administrative pushes.

[LWBeauclair]

Speech Speech Speech!!! You didn't get distracted did you? ;)

[thedancingbear]

I never do straight-up negation. Well, today I'm going to. My argument is easy, and who doesn't like it to be easy: we're not abandoning the Geneva convention, we're actually strengthening it.

An overview. The PMC is pretty short on warrants in some important places; I’ll point it out when we get there, but just keep it in mind. A lot of it is totally unwarranted alarmism, whereas my lackadaisical “what, me worry?” attitude will have tons of good reasons.

First argument that matters: the individuals in question aren't entitled to Geneva protections. This will directly answer her contention #2 and part of #3.

On contention two, examine her #2 arguments. She just asserts that the individuals in question qualify as POWs under the Geneva convention. Guess what. They don't. They aren't lawful combatants, so they can't be POWs. Why? They weren't in uniform; this is one of the most basic requirements to be a "lawful combatant" and get Geneva protections, because it discourages what the detainees were doing: trying to blend in with civilian populations and use them as human shields.

The Geneva Convention was never intended to protect people trying to hide in civilian populations; the whole point is to protect both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering, and if you decide (as the gov wants you to) that hiding in civilian populations out of uniform entitles you to POW status, I guarantee you those innocent civilian populations will pay the price.

The same is true for many of the individuals captured in Iraq, for exactly the same reason; some of those individuals were in uniform, of course, and they are being afforded Geneva protections.

Second argument: the Iraqi abuses are not officially sanctioned. This answers the Iraqi abuse contention. Thus, they don't constitute "moving away" from the Geneva convention, any more than individual murders constitute us "moving away" from laws against murder. Believe me, if anyone had found conclusive evidence that those abuses were being ordered by Rumsfeld or Bush, you'd have heard about it already. They haven't. There are accusations to that effect but no evidence yet.

Moreover, I seriously doubt Rumsfeld was ordering these soldiers to engage in bizarre sexual horseplay and take pictures of it with their digital cameras. I mean, look at the guy, he’s probably still afraid of his wife’s breasts. While those abuses are horrible, obviously, they do not by themselves constitute the U.S. moving away from Geneva.

In fact, the Administration is aggressively prosecuting and has already obtained some convictions of the people involved in these abuses. Doesn’t sound like they’re “abandoning” human rights, and don’t believe the government’s out-of-context assertion that Bush endorsed torture on a radio show or something. “Harsh interrogation methods” are not in violation of the G.C. It’s way more specific than that.

Third argument: the limitations on who the G.C. applies to actually strengthen the Convention. This is a turn, and also directly answers her second and third contention. If the G.C. were over-inclusive, it would collapse, because nations would stop supporting it. If anyone who fired a gun at a soldier had to be treated as a formal P.O.W., countries would just stop recognizing those POW rights altogether; the Bush administration has already shown that it’s willing to put pragmatism over international law, so the G.C. needs to be pragmatically enforced if it’s to continue to exist in the long term. The limitations are those pragmatic limits.

Moreover, by applying the G.C. only to its intended recipients (legal combatants), the U.S. can increase the credibility of the document as a whole. Not overstretching its intended bounds is good; that would “push it away” as much as not stretching it far enough, so actually, the affirmative’s advocacy demonstrates why the resolution is false. This is another turn.

Finally, on contention four. I have several arguments.

First, a little defense. Attempting to explain why soldiers might have acted as they did doesn’t demonstrate that the G.C. is being “pushed away.” Being understanding doesn’t mean you don’t also push for punishment; I haven’t heard anyone claiming that the people involved shouldn’t be punished to the maximum extent allowable by the law. And they are being punished. So I would contend that the evidence the gov gives you to “prove” public support for these abuses is weak at best.

Second, a little offense. The atrocities in Iraq have actually pushed more public acceptance and greater emphasis on the Geneva Convention than previously. We were, for a while, sort of “asleep” with regard to our treatment of international prisoners; now, there is a rigorous public debate happening and the G.C. is in the forefront of everyone’s mind. We’re aware that we’ve stepped near the line and there is immense public pressure, not just at home but abroad as well, to be mindful of where that line is. The constant press coverage of the prison abuses isn’t exactly “anti-Geneva,” now is it? That means that the recent events have brought us closer to the Geneva Convention, because we now talk about it and discuss it far more than we did before.

To conclude: to win this round, Lucy has to do more than just convince you that what’s going on is bad; she also has to convince you that it’s in violation of the Geneva Convetion, and that these violations constitute a large-scale moving away from the Convention. She hasn’t. Why?

The detainees at Guantanamo, and many in Iraq, are not legal combatants; the abuses that are truly outside of the Geneva Convention’s “spirit” are being rigorously punished; and the public outcry demonstrates we are now paying more attention to the Geneva Convention than we have at any previous point in the war on terror, and I’d bet on that continuing.

[LWBeauclair]

1)"The Geneva Convention was never intended to protect people trying to hide in civilian populations; the whole point is to protect both combatants and noncombatants"-- let's assume for a sec that your right about some prisoners not being covered as combatants (I don't think you are, but I'm having a stimulating conversation elsewhere and don't want to look it up until my speech). They would still be entitled to protection as noncombatants, right?

2) Torture = not cool GC wise right?

3) Off his Third argument-Since you don't like my definition of who gets to be a POW, can I have a bright-line on these pragmatic limits?

4) When the Geneva convention was drafted what was the status of non-state actors in conflicts? I.e., al-Qaeda equivalent?

5)Off The Rumsfeld argumentation- Can a person really be afraid of breasts?

6) How is a wilting flower a good thing?

[thedancingbear]

1) The GC was never intended to protect or encourage people who were violating well-understood "laws of war," like the requirement that combatants be in uniform.

2) As far as it comments on "protected persons," correct. However, see #1.

3) The legal combatant rules I discussed earlier are the line.

4) Non-state actors have been a force in conflicts for centuries. Early U.S. foreign policy was, no joke, very concerned with large groups of pirates that it sometimes took warlike acts against and so forth. It's hardly new.

5) Well, maybe his wife wears a corset or something.

6) Because it's so darn cute and you just want to de-wilt it. Or de-flower it, I can never remember.

[LWBeauclair]

I have to work tomorrow. Can I have until Sunday afternoonish on this one?
-me

[thedancingbear]

Sure.

-me

[LWBeauclair]

Thank you

[LWBeauclair]

Independent Voter Number One: Ian loses because he makes you think about Mrs. Rumsfeld in a corset. All of this aside, lets get down to business.

As a general overview, Ian fucks up big time on this one which means national champion boy should be sending me a trophy any day now. He ignores a critical distinction; my argument is not that The Geneva Convention is itself a necessary protection, but rather the violation of basic human rights, as defined by the Geneva Convention, are intuitively immoral. This means the following: I define basic human rights to mean: When imprisoned, regardless as to whether or not you are a soldier, the detained is not to be subjugated to murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, or torture. They are also exempt from outrages on personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment, etc. It’s not difficult to win that treatment of people at GTMO and Abu Gharib are being treated poorly, and its even easier to win that these atrocities are clasified as wicked. By conceding all of the definition debate, there’s no way for Ian to make up this much of the debate, which means he is going to lose. The only argument that he could possibly make up this ground is by saying that the Geneva Convention is only applicable to soldiers, but that will be irrelevant, because its “just true” that as a general practice, the Geneva Convention sets up a fair and non-arbitrary way to classify what is and is not fair treatment of soldiers. Any other interpretation as to how we should treat prisoners, of any kind, will a) be unpredictable, because it will a non-existent system in regards to how we should treat our prisoners, which would b) tank predictable ground, because its impossible to make legitimate arguments against something that doesn’t exist, because the structural systems that might exist would be arbitrary.

First argument: Individuals in question aren’t entitled to the Geneva protections. If we want to talk about radical assertions, this is one of them: Human rights are something necessary to protect. To quote our good friend from South Carolina [David Bereube] , “dehumanization is nuclear war”, “environmental apocalypse”, etc. We’ll win, easily, that the crimes committed in GTMO, which Ian doesn’t, in the least, specifically respond to, are dehumanizing and destructive. Extend from Contention One that they aren’t being granted the basic human rights as per either a) the Geneva Convention or b) even the US litigation system. Ian also concedes from this particular contention that indeed, most of the people who are at GTMO actually are qualified to be considered POW’s, which means that they are entitled to all of the protections of the GC. I also get a really easy argument: If I win that ONE person who is detained in GTMO, who would qualify as a POW, and is not shown, I show that the Status Quo fails and I deserve the ballot. There’s no risk of offense here, thats right, none. He’s not making any functional arguments.

Ian brings up an argument as to how the GC was designed to protect “both combatants and noncombatants” from unnecessary suffering. This is a stupid thing of him to do, because we’ll win that not all detainees in GTMO are convicted “felons”, this is proven in Contention Two, where its stated they aren’t given a full and legal trial, its impossible to prove that they are NOT entitled to GC accords. Look, this isn’t hard: There is only a risk that not everyone detained in GTMO are guerrilla fighters, and, considering the increasing number of occupants at the GTMO, there’s an ever increasing likelihood that some of them are actually innocent civilians, that are being unfairly treated. “Something wicked this way comes”.

This means that there is an entirely conceded Contention Two here. Comon, I know that this sounds cheesy, but its really hard to win a debate when you concede an entire part of the debate. Ian said a lot about how his arguments “answered Contention Two”, but by confusing that Abu Gharib and GTMO are entirely different places, it means that he’s in a bit of a bind. I don’t know why he doesn’t respond to this argument, but it means he’s going to lose.

Ian then argues that the Iraqi abuses are not officially sanctioned. This argument is not functionally responsive in any way, shape, nor form. I’ll win easily that the abuses were something that are an ever developing process, and you’ll have a tough time proving otherwise, considering a) there is zero warranted reasoning that GTMO is getting better every day, and b) that Abu Gharib was only occupied within the past year, that its an “old school” problem that’s going to fix itself. The current administrations “response” to these atrocities aren’t a way out either: Lets be serious. Bush is in an election year, but he’s not going to win any trophies for his treatments on human rig
hts. A large number of polls will more the willingly confirm that Bush is in a hot spot because of his position in regards to the basic treatment of humans. This has a couple of impacts: First of all, what Bush and the administration say on the outside do not necessarily mean that he’s actually making progress in the realm of human rights. A recent historical context proves this correct, for example, The Patriot Act, Transportation Security Measures, and other administrative trends indicate that Bush is more then willing to sacrifice human rights on the altar of “security”. GTMO and Abu Gharib are no exceptions to this matter. When Bush is interviewed in regards to the Patriot Act, he doesn’t come out and say “Well its to make sure that those Arabs don’t blow us up, so I think we should throw them in jail”, but actions speak a lot louder then words. Rumsfeld and Bush have both admitted to justifying “harsh interrogation methods”, which despite probably not being “bizarre sexual horseplay”, assuredly do include actions that the Geneva Convention would frown on: IE -Cruel Treatment and Torture. The argument that the administration is aggressively prosecuting those involved with the heinous crimes is irrelevant for three reasons as well. First of all, this is a public ploy to make Bush look more involved with the process. Secondly, it isn’t responsive to the GTMO Contention, in which case nothing is being done at all. Third, we haven’t seen any results of the prosecution of those involved in the crimes. A slap on the wrists is more then likely, and a lot of the people involved, Lynndie England for example, are becoming minor celebrities in America. They may be scolded in the liberals eyes, but to staunch War Hawks, she’s not exactly villain number one. The reasons that she’s not on the centerfold are entirely different then the reasons that Donald Rumsfeld likes her.

Lets go to the third argument now: There’s no link, nor impact, to this argument, and the GTMO and Abu Gharib arguments outweigh. Lets go to the link: The likelihood of a collapse in regards to the GC is about 1 in 1,000,000. More relevant is this: The basic human rights as defined by the Convention are the best standard applicable in regards to treating how prisoners are treated because it would prevent atrocities against human rights, etc. My argument is not that all countries will support them, but rather that a system in which all countries do support them would be good. This argument also is ridiculous because there are only a finite number of cases where GC protections would be neccessary. We’re not talking about a sudden influx of a million annonymous, international gunmen in France that would have to be dealt with. The likelihood of large number of international prisoners suddenly increasing is slim to none: There are only a limited number of arena’s in which people can be imprisoned and put in a position to neccessitate the GC accords. Because of this, the likelihood of a collapse is slim to none. Theres also no impact to this argument, because, as according to my case, the GC is already being broken in the area’s that it is needed most, this argument is non-unique. The case outweighs because I’ll win that if even one person is treated unfairly, the “wicked is coming in”. Its easy to win that treating prisoners badly is a bad thing, and that its happening, at least a little bit now, and that it would be sweet for this kind of torture to not happen.

Contention Four: Not going for it. The public sentiment may be against Guantanamo Bay, but that doesn’t mean that the abuses will stop happening. Your offense is morally repugnant – because bad things happen, we will backlash? That’s like saying that someone being raped is ok, because it will make the people around her really start to hate rapists, and can then “discuss it far more then we did before”. These abuses shouldn’t be happening, and thats all there is too it.

All that I have to do to win this debate is prove that the US is in violation of many of the GC ideals, and that the United State’s course of action has been immoral. I defined, and he conceded, that a moral treatment of prisoner would follow GC principals, and he also conceded that the US does not always follow these accords as a rule. This means that something wicked this way comes, he’s got no offense, and I want a National Championship trophy.

[LWBeauclair]

Ok there are some typos, but I was on the phone while typing. I'm sure you'll forgive me.

[thedancingbear]

Independent voter #1: that speech was 600 words overtime and still didn't make any good arguments. Given the quality of that MGC, I think it would be far more appropriate if I sent my quad-octs trophy from 2003.

An introduction: the gov has completely changed her advocacy from the first speech. Remember the initial burden that she set out for herself was that we are abandoning the Geneva Convention specifically. Do not let her attempt to win with the mid-round shift to "guys, torture is really bad" as if it's a harms scenario I need to beat back. I don't. There's no plan in play so there isn't a net benefits debate -- that was her choice, not mine. Torture can be bad -- it is bad -- but that doesn't mean we're abandoning the Geneva convention. It's straight out of her definitions; she needs to show "a movement toward the elimination of the afore mentioned GC."

In response to my first argument, she says we need to protect human rights, and then quotes and mis-spells Berube. It's a good thing my first argument had nothing to do with human rights being good or bad, but rather, with the Geneva Convention being inapplicable to non-uniformed people who are choosing to hide in civilian populations in violation of the laws of war. It's not a basic human right to have the G.C. posted in prisons; it's not even a basic human right to be free of harsh interrogation tactics. "Good cop/bad cop" is a form of coercion that the G.C. outlaws, and people do that in police stations. It's not a violation of anyone's human rights; that definition is so hilariously expansive that it makes the concept of human rights meaningless, which is a straight turn on her language. Vote for me if you prefer the concept of human rights to be meaningful.

I also never "concede" that the people at GTMO are POWs, despite her assertion to the contrary. I explain why they aren't and she doesn't tell you why they are. That's bad news bears because it means I win contention two.

Then she says that because the G.C. is designed to protect legal combatants and non-combatans, I should lose or something. Too bad she's again ignoring my analysis that the G.C. was never intended to encourage the "human shield" tactics -- remember that Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that if a civilian is suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim rights and privileges under the G.C. if it would be prejudicial to the security of such State. The "human shield" tactics of non-uniformed, illegal combatants do that and so even the G.C. says that they shouldn't get protections. This, again, turns her original case thesis: we are strictly obeying that part of the G.C. proving that it's moving closer.

Then she says I concede contention two. What? All of my non-uniformed analysis answers GTMO. Also, extend my dropped analysis about how voting for her means endorsing a world where people don't wear uniforms and use human shield tactics knowing the G.C. will still protect them.

In response to my second argument, she first rambles for a while about how the abuses are developing and Bush isn't going to win any trophies for H.R. That has nothing to do with my third argument. My argument is that because the abuses weren't officially sanctions -- and she provides you no evidence that they were -- it doesn't constitute the U.S. as a whole moving away from the G.C. any more than individual cases of theft constitute moving away from property rights. Extend that totally unanswered analysis.

Then she says polls indicate Bush is in hot water because of the Iraqi abuses. Haha, grant. Thanks for the sweet new case turn about how the American people and government highly value the Geneva Convention and even perceived violations of it get people in trouble. That means we're embracing the G.C. ever more tightly and I win. kthxbi

Then she rambles about how Bush sacrifices HR for security. None of this analysis matters as it has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush has ever been proved to endorse anything that would violate the G.C. -- "harsh interrogation methods" are not the same thing as torture, and don't let her try to lie and say that it's all the same as far as the G.C. is concerned.

On my third argument, she says there's no link or impact and the abuse outweighs. I don't know if she subcontracted this speech to a mediocre high school debater or what, but I have no clue how that answers anything. She says the likelihood of the U.S. ignoring the GC and it collapsing is one in a million. Um, thanks for the sweet new case turn about how the G.C. will never move away, I guess, but how does this answer jack? My argument was that if the U.S. had to apply Geneva protections to anyone who took a potshot at a soldier, they'd never apply it at all, and that would be worse. There's no analysis to answer that back.

Then she says basic human rights are good. Fine. But there's no plan in play so it doesn't matter if human rights are good or not, it just matters whether we're "moving away" from the Geneva Convention, which we aren't. Then she says well we wouldn't have to apply the Geneva Convention to anonymous gunmen from France. We would, actually, under her interp of it, because hey, they shot at someone, the police interrogation room needs to have a copy of the G.C. on the wall. Then she says there's no impact to the Geneva Convention's collapse because it's happening already. Yeah, that's kind of what the debate is about. Nice try, though.

Then she says if one person is treated badly, case outweighs and she wins. No. One person doesn't constitute "moving away" from the Geneva Convention; it would have to be officially sponsored rejection of the G.C. for people whom its protections actually applied to, and the American people would have to embrace that move-away. None of that is happening.

Extend my second argument on contention three; that applying the G.C. only to uniformed soldiers strengthens it. This is unanswered and an independent reason to vote for me.

She kicks contention four. Haha, whooooa, bad news bears, because there's a turn on there. She says that public sentiment won't stop the abuses; no but it does prove that we're not "moving away" from the Geneva Convention, and that we're actually embracing it. Extend the turn now. She says I'm morally repugnant -- no I'm not, I didn't say torture was good or that it should happen, just that in this case, it has led to a public embrace of the G.C. which means her case is false. Extend the turn again now. These abuses shouldn't be happening, you're right; but absent a plan to solve for them, it's irrelevant, and the only question before the decisionmakers is whether or not we're moving away from the G.C. I explain quite clearly that the public embrace of the G.C. post-Iraqi prison abuses means the G.C. is getting more respect and that's an independent reason to vote for me. Do that now.

To conclude. I don't have to win that torture is good, all I have to do is show one of a few things. First, the individuals in question don't even get Geneva Convention protections, so no matter what happens to them, it's irrelevant as to the status of the Convention. Second, none of the bad stuff is officially sanctioned, so it doesn't constitute a doctrinal shift. Third, an over-broad G.C. would actually lose international respect and would constitute "pushing away" the original intent of the authors. Finally, the public outcry over the Iraqi abuses indicates that even perceived infringements on human rights are enough to make the public run back to the Geneva Convention's loving arms even when it isn't applicable; that is, everyone loves the Geneva Convention.

Thanks, vote opposition.

[LWBeauclair]

"then quotes and mis-spells Berube"-- My appologies to Mr. Berube. Typing quickly nothing personal.

Rest of speech later.

[LWBeauclair]

A trophy’s a trophy (although I have cooler ones than what you're offering), so I guess I’ll have to take it. Word Count Schmerd Count, there’s no impact to going over and you were late on your speech anyway; in the worst case you can attribute yourself a pathetic low point win because I’m a little to verbose. All things considered, Im not counting this as part of my word count because its devoid of substance. Now, the real debate starts.


First argument on advocacy shift: This argument is based of the misconception made by Ian. My first speech says this: “In other words if I can convince you that human rights protections as supported by the Geneva Conventions”. Human Rights, as supported by the Geneva Convention. All I have to do is win that this is on the way out, and I win. This framework was established in the first speech, which means that in spite of being pretty sweet in this debate, not a single one of Ian’s arguments are actually responsive to my case. Ian doesn’t offer any other concept of what human rights functionally is, so it means that you default voting for me because there’s no other option then to assume that basic human rights should be granted to everyone, and the GC accords should be given.



His next string of arguments are STILL not responsive in any way. Look, I assert that all people taken as international prisoners should be granted basic human rights, as defined by the GC. It doesn’t matter in the slightest that this is an assertion, because there is NO COUNTER-ASSERTION. It’s a dropped argument, which means it’s a winning argument.



The only argument that I’m going for here on out is that people should be afforded generic human rights, and there’s no reason this isn’t true. Article 5 is erroneous to this debate, because its easy for me to win that the GC human rights accords should support that people who are “suspects” should still be granted basic rights. Violations of human dignity are in no case legitimate, and accordingly should be prevented. This answers his argument about “human shield tactics”.



Argument Number Two: Irrelevant. The abuses happened, and that was bad. The ways were wicked, and they should have been prevented. They weren’t. Look, Bush and Rumsfeld, despite not neccissarily giving the “OK”, had the pictures before the Washington Post ever got ahold of them. They didn’t stop the tragedy’s publicly until they went public, which means the current administration in the best case simply “turned an eye”, and in the worst cases, probably sanctioned it.



Your sweet new case turn is STILL morally reprehensible, as it is essentially the argument made on contention four in the last speech. The American People may value the GC Human Rights accord, but as can be seen, it doesn’t matter because people in charge or detainees aren’t actually following them. Torture occurs, and it’s a bad thing, game over. “Harsh Interrogation Methods” is a politically correct way to say “torture”. The GC may not know the difference because the US doesn’t tell them, but they still happen, and its still a bad thing.
On my third argument, she says there's no link or impact and the abuse outweighs. I don't know if she subcontracted this speech to a mediocre high school debater or what, but I have no clue how that answers anything. She says the likelihood of the U.S. ignoring the GC and it collapsing is one in a million. Um, thanks for the sweet new case turn about how the G.C. will never move away, I guess, but how does this answer jack? My argument was that if the U.S. had to apply Geneva protections to anyone who took a potshot at a soldier, they'd never apply it at all, and that would be worse. There's no analysis to answer that back.

”Then she says basic human rights are good. Fine. But there's no plan in play so it doesn't matter if human rights are good or not, it just matters whether we're "moving away" from the Geneva Convention, which we aren’t”---We are moving away from the GC standards on human rights, that’s all proven above, this argument is extraneous to the debate.



“Then she says well we wouldn't have to apply the Geneva Convention to anonymous gunmen from France. We would, actually, under her interp of it, because hey, they shot at someone, the police interrogation room needs to have a copy of the G.C. on the wall.“-------This is my argument – There aren’t ENOUGH CASES of “anonymous gunmen from France” to cause an impact in the international arena. This gets out of your only offensive argument, which means there is only a risk of offense that torture is generally bad.



Why would the American People have to embrace it? This doesn’t make any sense Those in charge of the military bases are all that matters, which means this argument doesn’t equal a win for the opp.

”Extend my second argument on contention three; that applying the G.C. only to uniformed soldiers strengthens it. This is unanswered and an independent reason to vote for me.”



This argument doesn’t have a warrant, not a reason to vote for you. The GC doesn’t work as stated right now, that’s conceded because the torture exists, which means that we’re moving away from the ideals it holds.

Debate 101: If I read defense against your turn, and extend your OWN defense, there’s no way for you to get your turn on contention four. Look, Public Feelings in regards to the GC are irrelevant, because they don’t have an impact on the GC. The only thing that matters it the administrations view on the GC, and I’ve already won that they don’t think of Human Rights in the same way the GC would.

Game ends accordingly: The people who matter in regards to the GC, IE the prison guards, are moving away from standards that the GC holds, and that means that there is a problem. The SQ isn’t working, and so we should fix it.

So Ian are you tied up Thursday?

[LWBeauclair]

:D
Yes Please! We'd appreciate it.

[pdano]

Wowee.

Ok, here's the reason it's VERY easy to vote opp. Lucy offers this burden for herself: "if I can convince you that human rights protections as supported by the Geneva Conventions are on there way out in the eyes of US politicians and public- then I win." Ian turns the public part. Gov then concedes that a couple of times in the PMR, but says "Why would the American People have to embrace it? This doesn’t make any sense. Those in charge of the military bases are all that matters, which means this argument doesn’t equal a win for the opp." Since Lucy concedes that she doesn't meet the burden she sets out for herself, I have to vote opp here.

Dan

[patio11]

I read this round once, was a little disoriented by all of the claims of drops, and flowed it with paper and pen to make sure I didn't miss anything. This verified my memory, which was that many of the claimed drops did not happen whatsoever.

First of all, I buy Ian's contention that I only vote Gov if I think the GC is going out the door, as originally described in the 1AC. This is really easy to verify with the 1AC in front of me, and if I didn't have access to that I'd still have my flow, and even if I were inclined to think that the 1AC had defined this round as "true or false: HR abuses occured in Abu", Ian's offense still wins.

In other words if I can convince you that human rights protections as supported by the Geneva Conventions are on there way out in the eyes of US politicians and public- then I win.

Yep, pretty cut and dried there. You could prove Dubya was a kitten-eating soul-murdering monster and, if he was in GC compliance, I still wouldn't care for the purpose of the debate.

On the uniformed soldiers turn: This gets dropped through both gov speeches. Bad call. Its the only real impact in the round, because it establishes that the US is valuing the letter of the treaty (why is this a good thing? Ian says it saves lives and also disproves case. Even if I weren't inclined to believe this already, and I am, I looked in vain for any argumentation coming from the gov.) This also answers the "one case of abuse outweighs" argument, because Ian has a really big impact (death of innocents) to weigh against the rejection of the GC, which I agree isn't even happening. As an aside: at least some of the prisoners in GITMO should have GC protection, because they were uniformed Taliban, and the Taliban was the recognized government of the Afghanistan -- too bad gov never makes this argument, but rather just asserts that they get protection (which Ian adequately refutes by saying they were all non-uniformed troops, which is false but not contested). GC doesn't give you a right to habeus corpus, by the by.

The argument that the administration turned a blind eye to the abuses and is therefore culpable is brand spanking new in the rebuttal. So I throw it out. Even if I keep it in, so what, it has no impact because it doesn't establish an ongoing GC violation, and that is the only thing the gov can do to win. Ian's turn here about the abuse causing an embrace of the GC is golden. Is that argument offensive? If Ian was suggesting "Lets beat up some Arabs to remind everyone why the GC is important", that would be offensive. But no one is proposing any policy. Ian is making the political observation that the administration will be walking on eggshells because of the abuse, and aside from being true its also dropped.

Ian has a bunch of independent voters all over the place, but they don't go into any depth, so I wouldn't have voted on them. If I wouldn't pull the trigger on T with X level of explanation, I won't vote on an IV with X level of explanation. Even the word-count thing never gets a cursory treatment of "And the reason why you should care, judge, is ...". I wouldn't call the IV on the criterion an IV at all -- its very dependent on her losing her other claims. Call it "case doesn't uphold own criterion" or something.

In sum, Ian has a bunch of interlocking arguments on why I should reject gov. (By the way, parli novi, take notes on this technique -- "even if" is the most underused phrase in the parli vocabulary aside from "I'm going for T") I'm left unable to imagine a world in which I would vote for the gov.

Oh, incidentally, the four+ times the gov claimed a drop when my flow said otherwise (often with a large, subpointed contention) did not help credibility one little bit. Neither did the style, which couldn't decide whether it wanted to be humorous or snide and defaulted to being Kerry. Tragic.

Strategic note: If you want to define a resolution as a fact case, pick a fact which is True. Part of the reason Ian's arguments sound so compelling and the gov searches in vain for counterexamples is because it is just a fact that a US politician who said "Screw Geneva", especially in the post-Abu era, would be run out of Washington on a rail.

Patrick McKenzie

[LWBeauclair]

I agree he won, but ouch that one stings.

[LWBeauclair]

OK fine so I layed out a weak PMC and tryed to make some sort of recovery. Clearly not a very good (or stylistic) one- this is much harder/different than speaking in rounds. So now that we have layed into my ego a bit, and stroked Ians -- could I perhaps get some positive feedback. There must have been something that didn't suck. Also for future reference I would love some suggestions on how to better debate online. So could we go for making this somewhat constructive?

Really not being bitter (I totally know I got beat, and badly). I really would just like something that would be helpful in the way of improvement.

Oh and the false drops were unintentional, not strategic. Sorry. Really sorry.

Nervous appologetic smile :)

[pdano]

One of the things you could do is look through some of the debates from last summer and this year. Anyone have suggestions for ones that were done well? I thought the bilingual education one was good (maybe some variant of GDS explains that), everyone seems to enjoy the video game round (Stoppable Force v. Movable Object), Ian v. Marie got high speaks from someone, and I kind of like mine against psuedo.

Dan

[Rebeccah Sharp]

All right, my turn, I suppose. First of all, I think that gov needs to learn how to take criticism. Patrick, Dan, and Jason are not exactly making fun of your shoes when they're being critical. They are going in-depth into the arguments to say where opportunities were missed. That's very important to learn from, and therefore dismissing the above commentary as "not constructive" is rather inaccurate.

That said, going back to the PMC.
I'm not going to say "if you have to win, pick a fact that's true". That begs for my intervention, something I spent a very long time explaining to Jason could be avoided easily in a round like this.

The PMC begins well with clear definitions that provide a good framework for the round. I think that it was likely unnecessary to frame it in such a way as "public sentiment", that adds another burden to gov, and she already has two (wicked, and coming). But the rest of them are quite good.
Additionally, I like the clear structure of case, and the taglines that tell a continuous story. I just think it needed to be more strategic and not try to prove so much. What you try to claim in the PMR was your point to prove, that human rights themselves are diminishing, is probably true, due to loopholes and wiggle room found in the GC. That would have been simple enough to prove.
edit: I don't mind a clear outline structure, especially for the first speech, i find it improves clarity. I didn't think it was too "pimpy" or anything. So, keep in mind that some things will just come down to stylistics.

The underview is well deployed, but I think another contention to prove the link between the implicit policy of moving away fron the GC to eliminating it. I like the "cheapening the value and significance," analysis, I just need more to put that into a logical step.

The PMR: Midway, this becomes quite good. At the point gov begins to concede the larger points and tease out the smaller ones for herself (here I'm thinking of Bush and Rumsfeld "turning an eye").

"There aren’t ENOUGH CASES of “anonymous gunmen from France” to cause an impact in the international arena. This gets out of your only offensive argument, which means there is only a risk of offense that torture is generally bad. "
This is the kind of impact weighing most PMRs don't do well enough. Even if it doesn't "get out" of that argument, it may diminish it (i don't know if I buy that or not, but it doesn't matter, the point is strategically, this kind of impact weighing is what you want to be doing)

Then we go a bit off again as the PMR contradicts the PMC in the "Debate 101" paragraph.


On Humor: Fundamentally, you both tried to be witty and ended up being a little snotty, blaming only Lucy for that is not exactly fair, and I was by turns entertained and appalled. Take from that what you will, you young people. ;)


Random: The independent voters are not in-depth, this is true.

I think that the inconsistencies between gov speeches are what really hurt gov here. That's what led to the false claims of drops.

Ultimately, the bones of the good argument are there, it just took a while to get around to it. I think the biggest lessons the gov can take away are (1) consistency and (2) presenting a gov case that does only what needs to be done, and no more. I'm not saying that the Gov should have presented some teeny little case, it's not a bad thing by any means to confront a current issue. Just determine what needs to be proven by the resolution and don't make it harder on yourself!!

[patio11]

A Language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
-Max Weinreich

That quote, by the by, is excellent. I think I'll steal it.

Patrick McKenzie

[LWBeauclair]

Originally posted by Western Amy
All right, my turn, I suppose. First of all, I think that gov needs to learn how to take criticism. Patrick, Dan, and Jason are not exactly making fun of your shoes when they're being critical.



Actually at the time I was wearing wretched shoes, so that would have been totally legit. ;)

Sensitive though I may be, Thanks for feedback everyone-- really it is helpful :D

[Mark McD]

OK, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'm a BP debater, and I don't have much of a head for all your fabby dabby dozy US terms, like drops and stuff.

I too found it really easy to vote for the opp here, I base mine though on level of analysis.

I felt that if I was going to be convinced of the merits of the gov case, I needed to see deeper argumentation in the opening speech. I don't think I get that, instead I get a long list of contentions, with little to no exploration and analysis to back it up.

As already pointed out, the central contention of gov is killed fairly early on, and from there on in it seems very much like gov is clutching at straws.

I also found the gov's style to be unpalatable, but it was not an influencing factor in the vote, more a personal quibble, please do not take offence :)

Like I say, not an expert on this, have judged more than my fair share of debates in the UK, but remain slightly bewildered by American stylees at times.

Looks like the tourney will be fun. :D

[LWBeauclair]

Originally posted by patio11
That quote, by the by, is excellent. I think I'll steal it.

Patrick McKenzie

I think we posted at the same time because I didn't see this. No you can't have my quote--- quick someone stop him. ;)

[BigChipp]

There seems to be a large concern over "dropped arguments" going around here. I would like to point out that only between 5-7 times in all of the speeches are the words "dropped" or "conceded" used. It should also be pointed out that the majority of the times this is used was to establish some sort of a framework for evaluating the argument (For Example, the other side claimed the argument was non-responsive, rather then simply "not answered").

[BigChipp]

Why is this "troubling"? Oh no, they said "dropped" when it wasn't. OK. So its not dropped, moving on. There is an incentive on the part of the speaker to not make percieved mistakes of this sort: It makes you look stupid. To say that its a "very troubling" situation is a vast overstatement, and it has essentially no effect on a debate.

[BigChipp]

By the way, my ballot goes to ISamuel. The reason is not because Lucy gets out debated, but rather that she just presents a factually inaccurate case. This wasn't really a debate round, because there was a statement, and it was proven to be false, and so in spite of a magnificient attempt to cover her rear, she couldn't because she was simply on the wrong side of the debate. I dont think you can really grant anything about "Turns" in this debate, because all of the debate was centered around "What is happening in the Status Quo". This type of a debate is meant more for the History Channel and less for a round.

[pdano]

Chipp: Drops are easy to see when there's a typed text in front of you. Not quite so easy at all in a real round.

Dan