Notes

Affirmative would be unable to
- T-enact -- aff would be unable to conduct critical research with regards to CJR -- the Supreme Court is a critical part of education in the topic and would have to have knowledge with regards to the
- Make fun of their definition -- their definition is from the Supreme Court of Alaska or a completely unrelated
- thousands of courts in the US -- arbitrarily pulling a quote from one of them is ridiculous. Their decisions to not have any authority.
- just because we have more cases (affs), that isn't necessarily a bad thing, we are still predictable -- there have been court cases for every domestic topic; court affs are actually good for the neg because it gives them access to court applicable off positions -- counter-interp: courts are the only mechanism (if we want stupid limits). We should be more offensive on T.

Not gonna shift towards life without parole -- symbolic action of aff makes sure that won’t happen

If you're a governor and you ban the death penalty, tough on crime people will criticize the aff -- the governor will do something to be tough on crime. The aff is something completely different -- the Court provides cover for these governors.

We're not responsible for intervening consequences -- "don't do the civil war because lots of people died" -- you can always come up with some scenario that provides a reason to not do an action -- faced with a certain evil, the symptom may cause another evil; it's still not a reason to get rid of another evil -- if we argue that we shift the tension onto other forms of punishment, then we are doing something positive. Explicitly argue that their logic concludes that the Civil War is bad -- the argument that right-wingers use against BLM -- "yeah racism is bad, but we don't want riots in the street, so we support law enforcement" -- might even be able to make this a voter

City of God -- slum in Brazil and rise of a crime lord -- good movie -- one of the scenes is the gang leader catching two kids, he gives them a choice (i can shoot you in the foot or shoot you in the hand, you choose) -- the choice is fucked up -- their CP is morally bankrupt; only a right-wing nutcase would think this is an adequate solution -- we are not trying to make judgments on which is worse; we don't advocate for LWOP -- it is not consistent with what the aff is trying to say -- "MAY" be a consequence of the aff, but they are making a ridiculous argument in favor of doing evil stuff because some people might do other evil stuff -- CP puts a false choice.

They're approach to our case is grounded in utilitarian thinking, proves that util is messed up -- they are literally making a utilitarian calculation to reject abolition of the death penalty -- use the LWOP debate to garner offense on framework.

Wayne favors a strategy that moves the aff in a more Kritikal direction (there are no DAs that make sense, DA links are morally questionable for all the reasons above).

"Courts have no impacts to politics (insulated)" against politics stuff -- Trump is gonna spin it as "my justices are interested in CJR" -- at this

Go through all the negative files for the DP -- if we over the generics, then we will probably be in decent shape against most

most of the body of the K -- we have to orient these case arguments as stuff for court decisions (Case turns of LWOP variety are pretty good for the K)

If we don't have enough ammo, I may have to give Noah the perm or FW -- be aware of the time allocation and situation of the 2AC -- if they only make like 8 arguments, answer them and handle the entire K -- if the 2AC gives a lot of stuff, then we may have to split the K