1. Airline Aviation Regulations (8:30)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase commercial airline regulation in the United States.
Ruth
-Its narrower than far others, a broader resolution is going to be much better
-Change made in the MSC is the location of the word regulation, opted for the phrase “commercial airline regulation”
-I ask about commercial airline regulation vs commercial aviation
-Ruth, thinks it makes it bigger
-Rich agrees with me, points out the FAA definition
-I point out that the FAA has the Commercial Aviation Safety Team
-Cort, says aviation may be the better umbrella term, but if you want to limit it down to air travel, then it could be commercial air travel
A motion is made to change airline to aviation,--Passes
-Does that open it up to space (both topics would allow it)
A motion to add its before commercial---passes
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its commercial aviation regulation in the United States.
Rich asks if we add its, do we need in the united states
-Ruth--could it limit foreign airlines coming into the US…..but that would be included when they land and operate in the US
-Cort, if you take it out, there could be regulations on foreign airports that handle US traffic, it could open it up, but it could exist because the regulation is still in the united states.
-Sam agrees that we can remove it
-Darren moves to drop “in the united states”--there is no second, it fails
Final wording--
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its commercial aviation regulation in the United States.
2. Climate Change (8:50)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase market-based regulations requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
-Should we change require to “to reduce”
-This is a larger discussion about whether or not it creates more
-Should we move substantial later
-What non-cp neg ground exists
Final wording did not change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase market-based regulations requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Criminal Justice Reform (9:10)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following areas: police misconduct, forensic science, sentencing.
-Colton--question about reform being bidirectional, but the thought of the aff would be to make it more rehabilitative and less punative
-Pam: would you be agreeable to eliminate the word areas
-Cort says it is not the correct way to phrase it
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following: police misconduct, forensic science, sentencing.
-Ruth-can we make police misconduct a different term, maybe just police conduct
-I suggest can we change it to policing
-Chris: does this make bidirectionality worse?
-Rich, I am less concerned about bidirectionality
-Ruth: Policing or police conduct is better than misconduct
-Roger: police conduct is more limiting to what the officers are doing, which is the better way to go
-Goldberg: policing or police misconduct are terms used, police conduct is not in the literature, Cort agrees that it is a distinction without a difference
-Motion to replace police misconduct with policing--passes
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following: policing, forensic science, sentencing.
-Ruth: reform and bidirectionality
-Cort--not that bad, and we worry about the verb every time and this is the best one
-Cort--Not that big of a problem
-Aaron--can we use the phrase criminal justice reform “substantially increase criminal justice reform”
-”substantial reform”
-should enact substantial criminal justice reform
-doesn’t change the problem with bidirectionality
-Darren--the bidirectionality probably gets solved in the first month
-Casey: using CJR is the better term of art
-Broader questions of negative ground
-Colton: politics DAs, questions of response to reforms by police departments
-Motion to adopt the second wording, which is below
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially substantially increase criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: policing, forensic science, sentencing.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase commercial airline regulation in the United States.
Ruth
-Its narrower than far others, a broader resolution is going to be much better
-Change made in the MSC is the location of the word regulation, opted for the phrase “commercial airline regulation”
-I ask about commercial airline regulation vs commercial aviation
-Ruth, thinks it makes it bigger
-Rich agrees with me, points out the FAA definition
-I point out that the FAA has the Commercial Aviation Safety Team
-Cort, says aviation may be the better umbrella term, but if you want to limit it down to air travel, then it could be commercial air travel
A motion is made to change airline to aviation,--Passes
-Does that open it up to space (both topics would allow it)
A motion to add its before commercial---passes
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its commercial aviation regulation in the United States.
Rich asks if we add its, do we need in the united states
-Ruth--could it limit foreign airlines coming into the US…..but that would be included when they land and operate in the US
-Cort, if you take it out, there could be regulations on foreign airports that handle US traffic, it could open it up, but it could exist because the regulation is still in the united states.
-Sam agrees that we can remove it
-Darren moves to drop “in the united states”--there is no second, it fails
Final wording--
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its commercial aviation regulation in the United States.
2. Climate Change (8:50)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase market-based regulations requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
-Should we change require to “to reduce”
-This is a larger discussion about whether or not it creates more
-Should we move substantial later
-What non-cp neg ground exists
Final wording did not change
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase market-based regulations requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Criminal Justice Reform (9:10)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following areas: police misconduct, forensic science, sentencing.
-Colton--question about reform being bidirectional, but the thought of the aff would be to make it more rehabilitative and less punative
-Pam: would you be agreeable to eliminate the word areas
-Cort says it is not the correct way to phrase it
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following: police misconduct, forensic science, sentencing.
-Ruth-can we make police misconduct a different term, maybe just police conduct
-I suggest can we change it to policing
-Chris: does this make bidirectionality worse?
-Rich, I am less concerned about bidirectionality
-Ruth: Policing or police conduct is better than misconduct
-Roger: police conduct is more limiting to what the officers are doing, which is the better way to go
-Goldberg: policing or police misconduct are terms used, police conduct is not in the literature, Cort agrees that it is a distinction without a difference
-Motion to replace police misconduct with policing--passes
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform the criminal justice system in the United States in one or more of the following: policing, forensic science, sentencing.
-Ruth: reform and bidirectionality
-Cort--not that bad, and we worry about the verb every time and this is the best one
-Cort--Not that big of a problem
-Aaron--can we use the phrase criminal justice reform “substantially increase criminal justice reform”
-”substantial reform”
-should enact substantial criminal justice reform
-doesn’t change the problem with bidirectionality
-Darren--the bidirectionality probably gets solved in the first month
-Casey: using CJR is the better term of art
-Broader questions of negative ground
-Colton: politics DAs, questions of response to reforms by police departments
-Motion to adopt the second wording, which is below
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially substantially increase criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: policing, forensic science, sentencing.