Where can I find examples of topics for debate or court cases?

Something that explains the court case and leaves the reader able to make speeches about it, and such. Like a court case given to a high school debate or mock trial team?Where can I find examples of topics for debate or court cases?
Besides the following information you might also try visiting your local County Courts, and local Judges.





Debate and Mock Trial


Examine the tools and strategies of debate and arguments, both written and spoken. Explore the spoken word by examining influential speeches and using research as a central tool in formulating your own persuasive oratory. Study the logic of argument and the structure of language to create elegant discourse and develop an ability to articulate specific points of divergence instead of mere disagreement. After practicing these skills, apply them in the legal arena through your participation in a mock trial.





An excellent source of speeches to study is Imprimis from Hillsdale College.


http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.a鈥?/a>





Journal Article Excerpt


The Rhetoric of Mock Trial Debate: Using Logos, Pathos and Ethos in Undergraduate Competition.


by Felicia R. Walker


While engaging in learning about roles of evidence, rules of procedure and case law, undergraduate mock trial students must also learn how to effectively communicate their evidence to the fact-finder. In mock trial, as in real courtroom trials in the United States legal system, communication skills and the ability to persuade are essential. This work examines how the art of rhetoric relates to mock trial debate. By applying Aristotle's proofs of logos, pathos and ethos, this article unveils how management of logic, emotional appeal and speaker credibility weigh heavily on the persuasion process in mock trial. It illustrates how poignant Aristotle's proofs are in contemporary undergraduate competition.


INTRODUCTION


Undergraduate mock trial debate competition involves several types of skills and several aspects that are similar to those in real courtroom trials. A successful competitor needs to have knowledge of courtroom procedures, knowledge of law for the jurisdiction (the American Mock Trial Association uses the fictitious jurisdiction of the State of Midlands), knowledge of the rules of evidence (a modified version of the Federal Rules of Evidence), and various other legal concepts and procedures. Many competitors can attest that having the legal knowledge is not enough for conducting a successful trial. In a mock trial competition, as in real trial courts in the United States, communication skills and the ability to persuade are also essential. This paper examines how the art of rhetoric relates to mock trial debate. Specifically, this work illustrates how Aristotle's proofs of logos, pathos, and ethos apply to undergraduate mock trial and how mockers must use them in their attempts to succeed in competition.


ARISTOTLE AND RHETORIC


Aristotle's well-known comprehensive work, Rhetoric, provides a comprehensive view of persuasion and public oratory. Divided into three volumes, it addresses the speaker, the audience, and the delivery of speech in a variety of contexts. Specifically, Aristotle divides oratory into three divisions: political, ceremonial and forensic. While political speaking urges audiences to do or not do something and ceremonial oratory either praises or censures someone, forensic oratory is more relevant to courtroom scenarios. ';Forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody: one or other of these two things must always be done by the parties in a case'; (Aristotle, 1954, p. 32). ';Parties in a law case aim at establishing the justice or injustice of some action...'; (Aristotle, 1954, p. 33). Forensic oratory is the type of speaking that concerns undergraduate mock trial debate students. In order to be successful in forensic oratory, students must grasp the concepts and practicalities of rhetoric.


Aristotle defines rhetoric as ';the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion'; (Aristotle, 1954, p. 24). Because students who are competing in mock trial are trying to persuade fact-finders to find in favor of their side, whether it is plaintiff/prosecution or defense, Aristotle's definition is particularly relevant. The American Mock Trial Association (AMTA) provides students with limited resources and case materials. Each team then, must, from that material, find their best means of persuasion-their best case. In their particular case, in a particular tournament, against a particular opponent, before a particular judge or jury, competitors must find and use their available means of persuasion. Because teams compete against different schools, each with their own theories of the same case, competitors must adjust their persuasive strategies from day to day, from tournament to tournament. In essence, mock trial debate is Aristotle's definition of rhetoric in action.


For many, rhetoric refers to talk without action, empty words with no substance, or flowery ornamental speech (Foss, Foss, %26amp; Trap, 1991). Even though some negatively view persuasion in the legal process as a 'bunch of rhetoric', effective communication is an integral part of courtroom success. ExWhere can I find examples of topics for debate or court cases?
a+
I Don't Know