NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2019. See message below.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "Utah v. Strieff"
Like the picture? Sometimes I wonder if the government is doing that to us.
I have to give it to the court judges: they have tough nerves. Not everyone can make definitive decisions that stand strong regardless of the heat gathered from people everywhere. They have to answer some hard questions: Does a person live or die? Do they leave in freedom or in chains? Do they live in the world around them or a prison cell? It takes thick skin to make those decisions. And sometimes, to make things even more fun, the court becomes divided with dissention galore if a case happens to be tricky. Utah v. Strieff is a great example of this, which is first introduced in the affirmative case, “Justice,” also called “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.” A huge benefit to this resolution is the emotional aspect of persuasion. This is notably true on the affirmative. You’ll see people stand up, adjust their perfectly tied tie, and speak with a quivering conviction that would sway the most hard-hearted members of an 18th century church: “Although we violated privacy, we stopped a MURDERER. That’s good… right? We can’t have murderers plaguing our society. You could be his next victim! He could be at your door AS WE SPEAK….” I’m not exaggerating. (alright, maybe a little bit)
Now, Utah v. Strieff is decidedly important and yet, admittedly, there are certainly applications with more raw impact. But if you’re dealing with court cases, one thing you can always focus on is the end result of the case. In other words, this case of “X v. Y” set a precedent for the future.
On a very basic level, to combat an impact-calculus case, some would say you either change the dynamic of the round to focus on philosophy, you neutralize the oomph of the affirmative impact, or you outweigh with your own impact calculus case. I think in this resolution, the affirmative definitely has the edge of persuasion right off the bat. But as the negative, although you have to still dismantle the construction of “truth-catches-criminals” agenda, you have some advantage when it comes to persuasion. If you can manage to change the affirmative precedent to that of an evil, destructive one, you’re already in a better position. That’s a common thread as you’ll see in this brief.
I love the dissenting opinions in Supreme Court decisions. They offer insight previously unheard of, which makes your possibility plate get a heaping helping of fresh perspective. As Anton Ego says in Ratatouille, “You know what I’m craving? A little…perspective. That’s it. I’d like some fresh, clear, well-seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to go with that?” What better perspective against Utah v. Strieff than the writings of the dissents?
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All Membership content and Library Archives are proprietary intellectual content, so please respect our copyrights. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member or a Library Access Owner you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited, the only exception being from immediate family members within a single household.
As a native Coloradan senior with almost six years of experience, Thomas has been in the top 8 competitor positions well over 50 times, winning numerous awards in both speech and debate. Out of more than 1800 competitors nationwide, he has consistently presided in the top 2% of speechranks listings. When he’s not working on speech and debate, you can find him studying Christian theology, composing music, drinking smooth coffee, or belting out lines from theater productions.