Philosophies
This philosophy says that we should do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people
What is Util
This value is about the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior and following a system of values held by a specified person or society
What is morality
This is the most important thing that you are trying to achieve in debate
This type of debate focuses on proving the resolution morally obligatory or morally prohibited using a framework with a value and value criterion
What is Trad Debate
Explain the Aff argument of "Fresh Ideas"
Allow new justices more regularly would allow for more solutions that are fit for modern issues. It would allow justices to be more aligned with the actual public and have a more modern view on modern problems.
This philosophy says that there are social structures (economic, legal, political, religious, cultural, etc..) that prevent individuals, groups, and societies from being excluded from our moral circle causes them to become demeaned or invisible
This value is usually defined as giving each their due
What is justice
This is the way that the value will be achieved
What is the value criterion
This allows the negative side to defend an advocacy separate from the status quo
What are counterplans
Explain the Con argument of "losing experience"
Having shorter terms would cause more experienced judges to be forced to leave regardless on how the 'people' view them.
This philosophy focuses on intent rather than consequences
What is deontology
This value focuses on the ability to climb the ladder of success
What is upward mobility
This is when you bring up or remind the judge of an argument made in a previous speech to make sure it still stands on the flow
What is extending an argument or card
This argument argues that a fundamental assumption of the resolution is flawed or offensive and thus it can't or shouldn't be debated or proven true
What are Kritiks
Explain the Aff argument of Democratic Accountability
The supreme court is fundamentally undemocratic - they have unprecedented power in US history, being the final arbiters of law, serving decades on end, and being effectively unremovable from office. The Supreme court must be more accountable to current opinions/beliefs by having shorter terms and more routine replacement of older justices with new (maybe younger) justices.
John Rawls said we should put this on to evaluate things without any bias
What is the veil of ignorance
This value says that individuals should be in charge of their own person
What is autonomy
This is when you focus on the key arguments even if it means dropping other arguments that aren't as important/impactful to the round
What is collapsing
This type of argument proposes rules to follow in a debate. The four parts consist of the interpretation, violation, standards, and the voters.
What is a theory shell
Explain the Aff argument about preventing presidential influence
It would prevent the president from extending too much political control over the court since they wouldn't be able to control how long a justice would remain as it may favor them due to political beliefs
This philosophy states that the citizen must listen to the sovereign and says that diminishing the power of the sovereign is wrong
What is Hobbes
This value is about recognizing authority granted to a government
What is government legitimacy
These are the three parts of every argument
What are claims, warrants, and impacts
This type of argument are usually abusive because they are hidden and intended for you to concede or because they are logically difficult to refute. They would automatically trigger an aff win or loss if conceded
What are tricks
Explain the neg argument Stare Decisis
Stare decisis describes how lower and upper courts looks towards the precedent of prior decisions of the court so that constitutional interpretations remain consistent and stable from court panel to panel. If there is a term in place and constant changing of justices, weak stare decisis will occur causing flip flop judicial decisions, destroying court credibility.