LIVE DEBATE: Qualified Immunity

IntroSayvillees accepted my open debate challenge to do a live debate and selected the Qualified Immunity topic and the Pro position. This means I will be arguing as a devil's advocate, which should be fun and entertaining. This is a live, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate, which makes it all the more exciting. This debate is scheduled to take place today (7/12/2017) around 11:45pm, EST.Since not all judges are familiar with the LD format or with live debates in general, I have nominated some judges who I believe are more qualified than most to adjudicate this kind of round. Those judges are: whiteflame, Hayd, Tejretics, Warren42, Raisor, Thett3, Airmax1227, and bluesteel (since I've seen him online lately). If Pro objects to anyone on this list, or wishes to add names, Pro should contact me before accepting the challenge, and we can discuss the issue. Judges, if they accept, agree to adjudicate this debate impartially and without outside assistance; judges are, of course, free to decline their nominations. The voting period is 1 month with a select winner system. TopicThe United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officersTermsLimit - "to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent" (Merriam Webster)Qualified Immunity - a legal doctrine which "protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs' rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was 'clearly established,' courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights" (Cornell Law School). Additionally, qualified immunity is a pretrial defense which prevents discovery and prevents a case proceeding to trial.Resolutional InterpretationIn order to prevent confusion regarding the meaning of this topic, which is admittedly worded in a less-than-clear way, my opponent and I have agreed on the following interpretation of the resolution: "to limit qualified immunity" means to reduce the extent of the protections police receive under QI doctrine; or, in other words, to make it easier to sue police. Pro will therefore argue for reducing the extent of available QI protections for police officers.Rules1. No "kritiks" (i.e. challenging the assumptions/premises of the resolution)2. No "flex prep" (i.e. using prep time as CX time or vice versa)3. No trolling or deliberately non-serious/humorous cases4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Debaters accept the definitions and the resolutional interpretation given above; debaters may provide definitions for other terms within the debate as needed6. Debaters must have, upon their opponent's request, citations or working URLs for their sources. Citations must contain roughly all that a regular MLA citation might. Citations or links can be exchanged in-between speeches (with no loss of prep) over DDO PMs, in the comments sections of this debate, through the G+ chat function, through email, or can be read out loud into the video.7. The first round is for acceptance only8. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossNon-Live Debate StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Con posts a Video-recording of the Live Debate; Pro posts "no round as agreed"Live Debate Structure6min - Aff Constructive (AC)3 - Neg CX (1CX)7 - Neg Constructive and First Rebuttal (NC/1NR)3 - Aff CX (2CX)4 - Aff First Rebuttal (1AR)6 - Neg Second Rebuttal (2NR)3 - Aff Second Rebuttal (2AR)w/ 4 minutes of prep time each to use at their discretionThanks...to Sayvillees for this debate; I am really looking forward to a great round of LD!