Tallinn IV 2007 Workshops
Tallinn IV 2007 workshops
1. The essence of BP, Jens Fischer
o Establishing a case
§ Status quo:
Has to be a problem—explain why the SQ is bad. In every status quo there is a normative level (two choices a) that normative level is false or inconsistent with bigger purposes of the state b) that normative level can’t be achieved )
§ Plan
Provide new principle (plus mechanism)
§ Why it’s good:
§ Normative level-- role of the state, nature of sth (e.g. nature of crime). Why it is morally justified to do it? (Why the plan/principle is good in itself). Can be more than only role of the state (depending on motion)
§ Practical implications—the plan is good because (it works and) brings some good implications e.g. how it will work.
o Opp strategies: question the rights (in case of balance of rights) and their balance or say that those rights cannot be achieved. Don’t say „your plan is too radical” (except in criminal justice, where there is a point of disproportionality), because then you agreeing with principles. Also, just because PROP says sth is done in some state, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good (using Holland everywhere in case of legalising cases) or just because sth is written in the constitution, doesn’t mean it is good as well.
o Concept of causality—We have A and B. Possible causes:
§ Connection is random (artificial)
§ A causes B
§ B causes A
§ There is a C causing both
o Bringing sexi back
§ Statement
§ Explanation
§ eXample
§ Illustration
o Use deduction in argumentation—set a principle and explain why it is relevant and then use examples etc (go from general to specific)
o ROLE OF THE STATE
§ What are the relevant principles (for example „states first role is to guarantee security”)
§ How does state in this case provide them
§ Bring examples from existing policies (obligation to use a seatbelt etc)
§ (Establish consistency with the principles (eg what other examples establish the legitimacy of abortion))
2. Zen debating—how to knife without knifing, Rhydian(if you’re the 2nd prop/opp and the first one has really screwed it up)
o PROP:
§ The point isn’t what you say, IT IS HOW YOU SAY IT (always be polite!!)
§ When the 1stPROP made a mistake explaining SQ→ „We don’t need to reinforce the SQ, but...” and move to principle! (or if the 1stprp was really mistaken, say that SQ is not relevant, it’s the principle we’re debating about)
§ Factual errors made by 1st prop(and if the OPP brings it out)→”fact doesn’t change the philosophy” and then broaden the debate (bring another example or explain the principle one more time)
§ When 1stprop squirrels: DUMP THE MECHANISM. Ignore it, move to principle. Try creating some connections with your and their case (but don’t start talking about what the motion really was, try to find principles that fit into both)
§ When 1st prop has no plan: say it isn’t about the mechanism, but about the principle and then speak about it
§ When the 1st part of the debate is really bad→move on. Do some rebuttal, but move on and ditch the case (in a quiet manner)
§ When the 1st part has been technical→”when the 1stprp established the implications’ level, we will speak about principles” (and vice versa)
§ When the OPP notices YOU knifing→try to explain why you are not doing it or say „ok, there have been some minor inconsistencies, but it doesn’t change the philosophy
o OPP
§ When 1stOPP counter props (doesn’t deny the philosophy, makes a counter plan or only speaks about the mechanism)—move to principle or take the cue from 2nd prop. Try to make a contrast with the 1st OPP
§ When motion is redefined—always follow 2nd prop!
o When the 1st side has been really good:
§ Give analysis (analyse through stakeholders’ perspective or through processes)
§ Role of the state
3. Roles and timing, Jessica
o 5 minute speeches:
§ 1 minute. Structure and definition
§ 3rd minute: 1st point (ROS)
§ 4:45: 2nd point ends
§ Last 15 sec: summary
o Roles:
§ P1: definition and the most relevant arguments (speak of principle)
§ O1: 1) handling the definition (don’t ignore it, even if it’s a squirrel, say that it is, but answer to P1-s case), 2) rebuttal (when P1 has been unclear try to catch the idea and answer that, rather than have ten small bad points), 3) constructive material (one point). When P1 has been really terrible and you understood nothing try to think what P1 might have said, create your own structure, do some integrated rebuttal in your points. Just because P1 might have not explained one’s points very well, assume he/she did.
§ P2 and O2: 1)rebuttal 2)constructive material (you have to bring sth new,)
§ P3: 1) extension 2) rebuttal the 1st side (not in this order necessarily)
§ O3: 1)answer the P3’s extension 2)rebuttal 1st side (or what P3 said about it) 3)extension
§ P4 and O4: summary (some integrated rebuttal, especially P4)
o POIs: if you don’t understand them: say it is irrelevant to the case or ask a repetition
4. Opp strategies, Charlotte
o SQ
§ This is not the SQ (and explain what the real SQ is)
§ SFW (so fucking what)--this is the SQ but it isn’t a problem (it isn’t bad)—burden of proof for the PROP. (when you see, that there really is a problem, agree and don’t waste time on it)
§ Causation is wrong (sth else causes this problem and since you do not deal with that cause, the problem won’t be solved)
o Plan/action
§ Already a SQ (restrictions on smoking)
§ Doesn’t work
§ Disproportionate (capital punishment for smokers)
§ Infeasible – doesn’t happen (only used when it comes to really ridiculous plans like giving all money to developing nations or UN cases) or is too expensive (not cost-effective)
§ Morally wrong to do so (the action by definition is bad, for example forcing women to give birth in order to increase birth rates)
§ There are better alternatives
§ Creates too big harms
o Outcome
§ SQ will worsen/stay the same
§ Doesn’t address your problem
§ Creates new harms
o There are 5 different debates:
§ Security vs. civil liberties
§ Liberty vs. third party
§ National sovereignty
§ Ends vs. means
§ .. (ei mäleta)
5. The principles of criminal justice, Alex
There are 5 purposes of punishment:
o Incapacitation e.g. isolation—danger to the society and removing that danger
§ Different proportions—not only jail, also on parole, technological things
§ Ex1: in UK and US sex offenders can’t live in heavily schooled areas (or work)
§ Ex2: mentally ill people and isolating them (but since they are irresponsible, it is regulated with civil law)
o Deterrence
§ Direct deterrence—criminal doesn’t want to go to jail
§ Indirect deterrence—members of the society fear punishments, wont’ do any crimes at all
§ Presumesrationality(that criminal weigh pros and cons)—problematic with sex offenders or crimes of passion— and that peopleknow that sth is illegal
§ Reality: people don’t weigh the punishments but the probability to get caught (eg increasing punishments is a wrong means, better is to improve implementation)
o Retribution (not revenge!)
§ Society punishes
§ Theory of social contract: we all give away and get for return some rights. By committing a crime the individual takes more rights and it is the job of the society to bring that individual to the same level with others (providing equality) through punishment
o Rehabilitation
§ Educational programs in jail etc
§ Discipline
§ Point of compensation (prisoners work, don’t get paid, in some countries)
o Expressive purpose
§ Symbolic action—you violated the social norms and society expresses its disapproval
§ Theory of criminology—crimes increase social coherence (know norms better, when they are violated)
§ Individual vs. society—in Germany there is a concept of crimes against public morality (the case of consensual cannibalism)
§ The concept of responsive law—law should follow the historical specialties of one system
Social implications of crime
o Role of the politicians (separation between the role of the sate and the role of the legislator)
§ Bear in mind that the proportion of punishments if affected with politicians’ desire to stay in power. Since society develops hysterical and disproportional reactions to some crimes (moral panic), it is in the interests of politicians to use that
§ Media as well—it bleeds, et leads
§ The question of what is better: the actual safety of people or the feeling of safety
o The effect on poor and minorities
§ Overrepresentation of minorities in prison
§ How to explain it? 1) minorities are poorer—not so good opportunities for good defense blabla or legal system doesn’t treat them equally 2) since socioeconomic conditions might affect criminal activity—they are poorer, no other choice 3)predisposition—they’re parents were in jail bla bla—vicious circle—more you imprison them, the worse it gets 4) they are just freaks and more criminal and hence deserve to go to jail
§ Practical question: 1) does it put more minorities to jail 2) if it does—what effect will it have?
o Life after sentence
§ Rehabilitation—good in jail or good outside (disproportionality)
§ Effect of jail: loses social network ( no job, family, friends), stigmatisation, gets a new social network—school of criminals
§ Effect on family. Unstable households
Substance of rights, 2 kinds:
o Rights that have a value in itself—freedom of speech, liberty
o Procedural rights—to guarantee aforementioned rights—presumption of innocence, rule of law, right to a fair trial
o Ex post facto laws—are not retrospective (individual couldn’t take these laws into consideration since they didn’t exist). One exception: Nurnberg trials—there was no legislation directly forbidding genocide when the Nazis killed Jews; however because of the universal nature of crimes against humanity (violating thejus naturale) it became possible to convict them. (Ex post facto principle applies to laws with negative effect, if there is is a law with a positive effect, like decreasing punishments, it is retrospective).
o What constitutes a crime:
§ Mens rea—evil intent
§ Actus reus—evil act
6. Ho to whip, Isabelle
o Sandwich strategy—start with a strongest principle, then a weaker one and in the end your extension or another strong point
o Timing:
§ 30 sec: introduction
§ 1,5 minutes: 1stprinciple
§ 1 minute or 45 sec: stuff
§ 1,5 minutes: extension
§ 30 seconds: conclusion
7. Motions in Tallinn IV
o Motions in practice debates
§ THBT EU should ban smoking in public places
§ THBT ICC should indict members of non-signatory countries
§ THW legalise bestiality
o Motions in preliminary rounds:
§ THW ban the possession of tobacco products
§ THW impose a maximum wage on school aged children
§ THW legalise necrophilia when specific provision has been made to the deceased’s will
§ THW punish murder attempts as harshly as successful murders
§ THBT EU should abolish the CAP
o Motions in the finals:
§ THB that EU should abolish bilateral aid
§ Siis see adoption asi