Say you had to give a persuasive speech on Citizens United vs The Federal Election Committee, and you were arguing against the Supreme Court's decision. You have to bring in a physical artifact to use as a visual as a large part of your grade. Short of passing out dolla dolla bills yall, what do you bring?
deletedabout 9 years
I bet she'd like that. I could conclude my speech by saying "This has been (my name here) up to bat against Citizens United, and I think I hit it straight out of the park."
deletedabout 9 years
maybe then you'll get a home run dohohohoho
deletedabout 9 years
Maybe a backwards baseball cap can be my artifact.
I can talk about how like, this isn't very American you know, yo.
deletedabout 9 years
that's probably the type of thing she would legitimately give high marks for but some dude who always wears a backwards baseball hat to class is probably gonna do it
deletedabout 9 years
My professor is a bona fide moron and I strongly suspect she will not be a professor after this year. She's also the only professor I've ever had without a doctorate.
But I guess I'd better do what she says for my A.
Right now I'm thinking about just handing out a stack of bills and saying "See, I bet you're a lot more inclined to listen to my opinion now."
Which I think would be a great way to illustrate my point, but I'd rather not hand out money if I can avoid it.
But my professor literally told me to "dumb it down." (lmfao what a joke.)
deletedabout 9 years
dartmouth college v. woodward would be a decent example then. it's more contractual law than it is corporation, mostly on account of corporations not being prevalent in the time period, but it's still a landmark case to reference. bring in the charter that was drafted for dartmouth college and basically go "this was the thing that said entities cannot override personal rights (in this case, the legislature cannot nullify the rights of two private parties)"
deletedabout 9 years
Fun fact: Did you know that as evidenced in Ex Parte McCardle, Congress can write of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court on any matter they choose whatsoever? When Congress claims that they are not in favor of Citizens United (as they tend to do) they are lying through their teeth. They have the power to write off the appellate jurisdiction of the Court whenever they please.
deletedabout 9 years
I'm trying to discredit the case from the perspective of legal precedent.
deletedabout 9 years
That's not a bad idea, but I didn't incorporate Hilary: The Movie in my speech.
My sub topics are:
1. Legal precedent (the court cases I mentioned)
2. Anachronism of regulations (all regulations that exist are results of Watergate.)
3. Undeclared candidacy as used to circumvent all in place regulations (undeclared candidates who do not hold office are exempt from all regulations until they declare candidacy. This is the reason Jeb Bush among others waited so long to declare)
deletedabout 9 years
yes your artifact is hillary the movie because that was the inciting event behind the case and you can rail on it for being slanderous garbage (whether or not you truly believe it remains to be seen, you're arguing a specific point here)
deletedabout 9 years
First of all, good post.
Second of all, this is my argument. I'm using legal precedent such as the Menendez case, The Santa Claire Case, and Ex Parte McCardle to support it. I just need an artifact.
deletedabout 9 years
this isn't about hillary you fu cking dunce
deletedabout 9 years
i edited this
also you don't need art skills, you literally just have to make a dvd cover. this isn't that hard, most of it is writing. look at the back of a dvd cover and almost 50% of it or more is words. you just have to summarize what you want to argue the movie is expressing.
deletedabout 9 years
First of all, bad post.
Second of all, Hilary is funded by as many or more Super PACs than any given GOP candidate.
deletedabout 9 years
I have no art skills whatsoever. I have analytical, research, and language skills.
My argument is irrefutable and supported by legal precedent. The only reason I need an artifact at all is because my professor is a dummy who pronounces the Polish kid's name (David spelled Dawid) as (DAY-WID)
Even if you did something like this (obviously with a different message) it would work great for a visual in a speech.
deletedabout 9 years
bring in your home-made DVD cover of "hillary: the movie"
your argument should be along the lines of "corporations aren't people, the framers intentions' behind freedom of speech isn't extended to nebulous conceptual people rather than literal ones"
Another Idea I can think of, is maybe make a protest poster or banner or something. Get a sheet or tarp and some paint and paint away. Think of a slogan or something. Anything that will back you up for a speech.
It does work for a visual. If you have any art skills what so ever, just make something. Even if its graphs of certain statistics based around the results that will back up your thesis.
ergh, disgusting stuff. Please tell me you're trying to persuade people that the decision is bad. The only relevant thing you can take in is a bribe for the teacher...
