Instigator

The Prorogation of Parliament

Open challenge

First participant to accept the challenge takes the contender's role

The debate will be automatically deleted in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1505
Contender
Open
Description
--Overview--
This debate will last 4 rounds, with 3 days for each debater to post for each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debater for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO of 1,505 to accept, and I would prefer someone who has completed at least one debate on the site as an opponent. I am taking the Pro position.
Importantly: this is not a debate about the logic the justices of the UK Supreme Court used to arrive at their verdict, nor is it about the remedy they chose to pursue. This debate is only about their specific conclusion that the prorogation was unlawful, and nothing else. The cases which generated the ruling in question are R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister and Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland.
--Topic--
The UK Supreme Court rightly decided that Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.
--Definitions--
Rightly - in a manner conforming to fact, logic, and the law
Prorogation - the formal ending of a parliamentary session
Unlawful - prohibited by or contrary to the law
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation or rejection of any of these rules or of any of the description's set-up (including definitions), merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Round 1
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @bsh1
evidence that leaderboards lie: just the thought of taking CON here makes my knickers moist.
#16
Added:
--> @bsh1
I'm also interested in doing a debate on whether or not Britain should abolish the monarchy. I can debate either side, though I strongly lean pro.
#15
Added:
--> @bsh1
Give me a few months and we can do it.
#14
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Sure. That would be an interesting debate indeed.
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @bsh1
Perhaps we could have a debate on that. :D
#12
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Nah. Parliaments are wayyy better, for a whole host of reasons.
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @bsh1
Watching Britain makes me glad we have a Congress and not a Parliament
#10
Added:
--> @PoliceSheep
I entirely agree. Though I am American, watched all the court proceedings live. It was really a fascinating drama...if you're a nerd like me, lol.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @bsh1
As a British politics student up in Yorkshire - I have to completely agree with you so I can't take Con unfortunately as all the objections by the AG, Johnson, Farage, leave.eu et. al. are unfounded.
#8
Added:
--> @bsh1
I believe if you changed the technical, unfamiliar term prorogation to its simple english definition, more people may bite. Especially nowadays, people seem willing to undercut control methods in support of a strong man they agree with. Brexit is quite popular with trump so i assume many of his supporters may argue in favor of prorogation. Im sure some of them would love to prorogate the house state side.
#7
Added:
--> @Christen
If no one accepts, that's fine.
This is a topic that interests me and which I find fascinating, and perhaps there is someone willing to debate it. Depending on the news you read, it's not exactly low-profile (I read a lot of British news). I put forward the debates I want to have, not necessarily the debates I expect to be accepted.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
There is indeed an argument. The UK regularly prorogues its parliament (usually every year), thereby stopping its proceedings. The question, ultimately, is whether prorogation is justiciable or not, and, if it is, whether the specific prorogation in question was unlawful. I would anticipate that justiciability would be the core of most Con cases; if they can assert that prorogation was, for instance, a proceeding in parliament, the court should have found it to be nonjusticiable rather than unlawful.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @bsh1
This debate is basically a truism. Ever since the 17th century, it's been illegal for an official to stop parliamentary proceedings. There's no argument here.
#4
Added:
Theresa May was actually a really good Prime Minister, why the fuck the media bullied her to step down is beyond me.
Brexit has gone to even more shit than it already was in because Boris is pleasing two extremes at once. He wants to appeal to hardline Brexiters, who want a no-deal or whatever by 31st October and is also trying to please remainers and moderate-leavers who want a very good deal and want to forget about the 31st October deadline completely. Both loathe him for pandering to the other group.
#3
Added:
--> @Christen
Yeah, agreed. I'm not sure there is anyone willing to take the con side. It'll be an interesting debate
#2
No votes yet