Public Health, or Criminal Justice?

[rakdos11]

Alright, everyone, we've been pushing full steam ahead on this topic for a few weeks now. Let's open some dialogue on it. How are YOU laying down the ban-hammer and getting to finals? Me, I've been running Mill on the aff and Aristotle on the neg. :cool:

[JjulianSr]

One thing I'm not seeing (and it's really frustrating me as a judge) is the resolutional analysis being done properly - especially by the Neg.

Semantically, this resolution has a double burden on the Aff:
1) To show that the abuse of illegal drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, AND
2) That the abuse of illegal drugs should NOT be treated as a matter of criminal justice.

I watched 6 rounds at Whitman, including two outrounds in Champ - and 3 of the 6 Aff cases addressed one aspect, but not the other. This begs for a prima facie violation (failing to affirm the entire res in the AC). Yet I'm not seeing it. I know they teach Topicality in LD at camps now. Someone needs to start using it.

What I am seeing (and growing tired of) is the Aff COMPLAINING about Neg "do both" cases. They say the resolution demands the Aff defend public health, while the Neg must uphold only criminal justice. Yet I never hear one warrant as to WHY this must be the case (except "ground/fairness" - which is untrue... there is plenty of literature about how enforcing treatment, forcing rehab/therapy, forcing cold-turkey dry-out, et al., on inmates leads to more crime/more drug use/more harms... and plenty of ground to say that forcing treatment in jail is not working and never would and morally we shouldn't try).

Ah well... I'm curious as to what others are seeing/finding in their research and rounds.