The Debate Hall Social Thread

[rvkevin]

You can sue the government for enacting something unconstitutional

You need standing though, which means that you need to be the person of whose liberties are being violated, and if you can't find the person for which this unconstitutional thing is done to, you can't sue. For example, it is unconstitutional for the government to mandate prayer in schools. If a school did this, I could not sue because I don't have standing. You would need to find some parent who has a child in that school to represent. However, in the case of "illegal" detention, it would be hard to find someone that has standing since they have "disappeared". This entirely depends on whether people who have been indefinitely detained still have the right to legal counsel. Do you know if they do?

The problem is that doesn't work, you just have to look at the bush years to see that doesn't work.

Yeah, I agree its a no win situation. Mark it up as a conscientious objection vote; its more of a statement rather than an effort to effect change. Since my state is not a swing state and typically goes Democratic anyway, I was thinking of going independent anyway unless the polls show it is a tight race just to go against the two party system a little bit. If my vote isn't going to make a difference, I might as well vote for someone I support.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Well, Ron Paul might be running as a republican, but he's effectively third party. I'm quite doubtful about his chances of winning, but considering the amount of stupidity going on with the current government, it doesn't feel like quite the same realm of impossibility any more.

 

[AltF4]

You can watch the proceedings live here:
http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa

 

[Aesir]

You need standing though, which means that you need to be the person of whose liberties are being violated, and if you can't find the person for which this unconstitutional thing is done to, you can't sue. For example, it is unconstitutional for the government to mandate prayer in schools. If a school did this, I could not sue because I don't have standing. You would need to find some parent who has a child in that school to represent. However, in the case of "illegal" detention, it would be hard to find someone that has standing since they have "disappeared". This entirely depends on whether people who have been indefinitely detained still have the right to legal counsel. Do you know if they do?

Probably not as gitmo detainee's don't have standing to sue.

However you can challenge the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, I believe don't quote me on it.

 

[Dre89]

The 2011 forum awards are open for nomination and one of them is master debater for the DH.

Just wanted to know if you guys were going to nominate anyone.

I wonder if you can nominate someone who isn't even in the DH. It'd be funny if someone got nominated and won because none of us nominated anyone else.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think we should all go nominate AltF4, personally...

 

[Dre89]

He's my tip to win, assuming some outsiders don't vote for someone random, or someone gets a bunch of members to vote for them.

Apparently there's three finalists though. It'd be interesting to see who the other two are. Those are less clear to me. If people here do decide to vote, it'll basically be a contest of who has more like-minded people in the DH.

I'm screwed because the majority of people who might consider voting for me are either still in the PG or have gone inactive lol.

 

[Sucumbio]

The Justice Department has the authority to challenge a law as unconstitutional, even if there's no specific parties stepping forward. Here's an example. In this example there were 3rd parties invited to discuss and support the opposition to the law, but they themselves were not victims of the law.

So in the case of the defense bill, a constitutional legal expert could step forward and make a case, and the draft could be reviewed, without the presence of a wrongfully detained citizen.

But I do take the point that in this particular example, it'll be all the more difficult to challenge. Not only would there rarely if ever be an actual person to make a direct claim against the government, but the whole thing balances on "national security" which has always been and continues to be a synonym for "agree or die."

 

[Nicholas1024]

Well, I'm still around (kinda), but I'm only one voter...

I'd be amused if I got nominated, and downright shocked if I actually won. Mainly because the vast majority of debaters here are atheist, and so have at least some form of bias against my arguments. *insert BPC insult about Christianity/religion in general*

I don't know, who do you guys think will win?

 

[rvkevin]

The Justice Department has the authority to challenge a law as unconstitutional, even if there's no specific parties stepping forward. Here's an example. In this example there were 3rd parties invited to discuss and support the opposition to the law, but they themselves were not victims of the law.

From the article: "The White House will have to give its stamp of approval for the Justice Department to challenge the law because this is a civil case."

The Justice Department wrote a recommendation that doesn't appear to have any legal force behind it without the cooperation of the White House. I'm not sure about the process this goes through, but if the White House is required to overturn the law, in the case of indefinite detention, they were complicit in its creation so we would be up a creek without a paddle. Anyway, even if other departments of the government are able to challenge it, it is always better to be able to directly challenge it because then you don't have the problem of representatives not representing your interests.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, I'm still around (kinda), but I'm only one voter...

I'd be amused if I got nominated, and downright shocked if I actually won. Mainly because the vast majority of debaters here are atheist, and so have at least some form of bias against my arguments. *insert BPC insult about Christianity/religion in general*

I don't know, who do you guys think will win?

It's not just bias, your arguments tend to be pretty bad. You put in work, and sometimes you make good arguments, but more often than not, you're ignoring some crucial factor, or making a big fat leap in logic.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Which reminds me, you never took me up on my offer nich.

 

[Aesir]

surprised more people are not challenging me in my thread. =(

 

[blazedaces]

surprised more people are not challenging me in my thread. =(

It's because everyone agrees with you... Not much to debate about.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

That's kinda sad because my whole post is dripping in pessimism.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Sorry about that Adumb, I've been rather busy thanks to finals. Almost done though, just one more homework to go.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'd say AltF4 deserves our nomination. He's probably the best in here. I have no idea where I'd clock in though, possibly behind Dre.

 

[ciaza]

AltF4 comes to mind, with rvkevin and underdoggs close behind in my opinion

i wonder how the rest of the forum will vote, if it all

 

[Dre89]

Bob are you saying that I'd be second and you'd be third, or that whever I place, you'd be behind me?

Either way, thanks for the compliment. Respect.

So are we going to discuss who to vote for, or will everyone just vote in secrecy?

 

[ciaza]

if everyone votes in secrecy, won't that just increase the chances that some random that the rest of the forum voted for will win? i think if we all decide who should win and all voted for them that person would be much more likely to win (obviously)

secrecy sounds fairer though to avoid peer pressure, and i think alt would probs win anyway by the sounds of things so i don't really mind what we do

 

[Dre89]

But the way it works is that there are three finalists, and I then I think there something got to do with 'campaigning' after that.

So if we agree on who to vote for, we should choose the other two finalists as well.

Also, are we going to make an agreement that we don't get any of our friends to vote for us? Or is all fair in love and war?

 

[ciaza]

i'm not sure i understand, if we choose 3 people to vote for, and only get one vote each, we'd have to split our votes between the three candidates again lowering the chances that even one of them would make it to the finals.

wouldn't it be easier to choose one person to vote for and ensure he becomes a finalist and then work on campaigning after that?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob are you saying that I'd be second and you'd be third, or that whever I place, you'd be behind me?

Either way, thanks for the compliment. Respect.

I don't know. After AltF4 it gets rather nebulous, and obscure. I would say that you're probably better than me at least in terms of the sophistication of your arguments. Mine tend to be brute force affairs.

But the way it works is that there are three finalists, and I then I think there something got to do with 'campaigning' after that.

So if we agree on who to vote for, we should choose the other two finalists as well.

Fair point. May as well vote in secret. It's probably fairer that way.

But I would like to have some idea of how good I am, that is the benefit of having people declare their votes.

I feel like having a free-will debate. It's one of those topics that go nowhere, but you get to see how somebody debates and just have a good time.

 

[Dre89]

Ciaza's right, we might as well all put our votes towards one person.

It looks like Alt will win, but we should probably get everyone to vote in here first, to make sure who the favourite is.

I'll also ask the PGers to vote, seeing as they interact with us too.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ciaza's right, we might as well all put our votes towards one person.

It looks like Alt will win, but we should probably get everyone to vote in here first, to make sure who the favourite is.

I'll also ask the PGers to vote, seeing as they interact with us too.

That's a good idea. How are we going to do the voting?

 

[rvkevin]

Alt4 +1

10 char

 

[BOB SAGET!]

ya how are we gonna do the voting? lol

 

[Dre89]

Similar to how we vote in the JC.

We just get everyone to vote in here, then the person with the most votes is the one we all vote for in the actual thing.

The only problem is that if all our votes are committed into one person, then we won't have votes left to pick the other finalists.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How about we give everyone 3 votes? And we can't vote for the same person twice?

 

[Dre89]

You can only place one vote per category. So we all essentially only get 1 vote.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You can only place one vote per category. So we all essentially only get 1 vote.

I'm talking about the pre-ballot. I thought we were having one.

 

[Dre89]

I'm confused. What would giving three votes here achieve?

 

[Theftz22]

To be honest I've always felt more of a challenge debating rvkevin than Alt4. Alt's argument against the conceivability to possibility thesis is the only time where I've felt he's solidly had the advantage against me. My vote would go to rvkevin.

 

[Aesir]

I don't agree with that, I think it's down to debate style.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm confused. What would giving three votes here achieve

It'd mean that we don't only end up voting for 1 candidate and a have a second and third finalist.

Also, would you guys mind if I posted in the Determinism vs. Free Will thread. I have discovered a new argument on the subject.

 

[Dre89]

Well everyone can just vote here once and then the ones who come second and third can get voted for.

The problem is we don't know how many outside votes come in, so if we divide our votes between three people our winner might lose out to outside votes.

And yeah you can post in the determinism thread, I don't 'mind'.

Classic.

 

[Sucumbio]

Master Debater (lol! Really, Mic? REALLY?)
An award for the poster who is best known for their debate skills in the Debate Hall section for 2011.

Best known for their debate skills in the Debate Hall.

Not sure if we should worry about it too much. Just go into the nomination thread and nominate whoever you want. If you feel like sharing with the rest of the class who you voted for, cool beans.

I have not voted yet.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What's all this about master debater?

 

[GoldShadow]

The return of Forum Awards and a Master Debater (lol) award.

Anyway, I'm with Suc. While we could have our own system of nominations and then all vote for one candidate, that seems somewhat excessive. Besides, it seems like most of us are in agreement over one or two debaters we think should win, anyway. While I don't see any problem with encouraging debaters and PGers to vote for your favorite candidate, I don't see a need for a big concerted effort, either.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

And yeah you can post in the determinism thread, I don't 'mind'.

Classic.

Cheers.

And okay then. I'll vote for... AltF4.