From Mitch Gaffer
Not a bad crop of resolutions this time. I would suggest the following comments for camp and convention consideration (use comments as you see appropriate):
1. Good resolution framing a key aspect on the war on terrorism. A national debate this country needs to have. Good LD issues come up. National security vs. individual legal rights. Society issues vs. individual rights issues. This should make for good clash, possibly avoiding both sides from claiming the same value. I like this one and will be rating it high in any fianl vote.
2. I like this one. We've debated this resolution before. The resolution contain many 'qualifying terms' that can be used in analysis and debate (such as 'deliberate', 'deadly' force, and 'repeated'.) Both sides may be able to claim the value of justice but what justice is and what is 'right' is certainly debatable.
3. Please, let's not debate gun control. I see more interesting debate in other resolutions.
4. I like this resolution, but could have limited appeal, especially for new LDers. Does set up good clash. State vs. individual. Collective good v.s individual rights. Being a legal issue battled in the courts, eminent domain should have lots of evidence/support.
5. Taxes is not always an interesting issue, especially for newbies to LD. I'm not crazy about this one but can see the clash. I just hope the clash is more than just estate tax policy (How much is fair? etc.) Tax policy can have some good value debate (I.E.- obligation to government, individual choice/freedom, etc.) Still...taxes...really?!
6. I like this resolution. It looks at the purpose of government and its use of budget monies. This can lead to the goals of what government resources and effort can (or ought) to be achieved. Arguments dealing with social fairness and personal responsibility can also be used.
7. Although I could learn to like this rsolution, I don't think it will end up rated highly in the end. This resolution could end being a 'policy-type' look at different energy production methods and what there impact is. Certainly a cost benefit analysis of energy production can yield a variety of value oriented positions, this could degenerate into the harms of oil production vs. the economy. Not exactly where I really want to go in LD.
8. I like resolutions that look at current and tech related concerns. This one does. Being computer related this one can be more appealing to novice LDers. Beyond the good study of some standard legal ideas (probable cause, search warrents and related law), it also brings in issues of computer data, 'remote' searches and how they differ from home server based searches. Besides, anytime we can apply morals to computers, I think we are teaching something valuable to students.
9. Could be a good resolution ONLY if students research beyond the recent Osama bin Laden mission. Only by looking at more; such as other target programs (Pheonix program in Vietnam, for example) or their use by 'evil' authoritarian regimes can this resolution expand into meaningful debate. I like this one and will probably rate it highly...and then will challenge my kids to really go beyond the surface. Let's look at the core reasons behind these missions and use the mission examples for support. This needs to be a debate about the principles of these mission...not just of one particular mission.
10. This one seems to be the same as resolution 6, except from an individual obligation perspective rather than from government. I think I like 6 better...but I'n not sure yet...
From Bob Trzynka
I would agree that, on par, the resolutions aren't too bad. A couple of dogs, but here are my two cents for camp purposes:
1: Good resolution. Should foster good debate, but I would also caution that it could lead to careless and jingoistic debates too. From a camp perspective, it may be a good teaching moments so that the debaters can understand the difference between substantive due process rights and procedural due process rights. Further, the wording of the resolution appears to suggest that the United States does not afford these "due process" rights currently. Most (and by most, I mean virtually all) high court decisions indicate that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded both procedural and substantive due process rights, absent some limited - exigent - circumstances. A second tack to look into on this resolution would be to consider our international treaty obligations, both from a human rights perspective and a military/diplomatic perspective.
2. I think the mens rea component of this resolution is interesting. Probably a good way to frame this resolution to the kids is the classic trolley logic problem. Probably a lot of clash between telological/utilitarian concepts and a more deontological approach.
3. Frankly, I agree that this is a bad resolution, but for different reasons than Mitch. The court cases currently discussing this topic have concluded that it is an individual right, but they're pretty tortuous to read. Additionally, this resolution has a major judge bias creep problem. Danger, Will Robinson..., danger!
4. While I, personally, love this particular resolution; for high school students, it is a MESS. There is a huge conflict over eminent domain and the limits that the Constitution currently allows. My concern with this resolution is that it will be overly superficial because it would be impossible to even scratch the surface of this topic in the timeframe of a typical LD round. Nonetheless, Locke seems the most logical starting place for folks on this resolution. For an interesting twist, though, you might want to look to the postmodern marxists.
5. Could be interesting, but I think it's too messy. Neo-marxists, util, Foucault, Rousseau, Hobbes would all be good. Could be some interesting perspectives from Aquinas too.
6. Neo-marxists again.... Also, Ronald Dworkin might be an interesting resource.
7. There is a substantial amount of material on this topic in the environmental law area. Several journals dedicated just to this topic.
8. Huge Fourth Amendment pitfalls here. I would suggest focusing, from a pedagogical perspective, on what probable cause actually means and the myriad exceptions to it. Interesting arguments are to be found in the warrantless wiretapping cases before the US Supreme Court.
9. Trolley thought experiment, part deux. Classic util/kant clash. Yawn.
10. This resolution is way too broad. What does "need" mean? Financial, emotional, personal? All might qualify. And, are there some instances of need that obligate and others that do not? How does that affect resolutional analysis? I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it.
From Mike Larson
I also think they are not that bad.
1. I also think that this is a good resolution. I think we had something like it as a nationals topic a few years ago. I do think it provides plenty of good ground on both sides.
2. I would also agree that this one is a good topic. It is nice to have a good morality debate.
3. I also don't like this one. The resolution is a little too simplistic. I think debate is possible.
4. This was a resolution about 6 years ago, and those LDers still love talking about it. I have to disagree with Bob on this one. This is something that is specific to SD with the pipeline debate. The novice debaters can really get into the topic. I highly hope that this will be a Nov/Dec resolution.
5. HATE IT! There are much better ways to focus on tax justice.
6. This is a much better way of tackling economic justice/ free market debate. No a bad resolution, but not a great one.
7. I am okay with this resolution, but not my favorite.
8. I think this one is too lop-sided to the neg. The idea that there is no privacy at all on the web is not a winnable position.
9. This is good to use for the purpose of exploring what is possible in a resolution, but since it doesn't limit itself to the US, I see it getting ugle fast. Don't like it.
10. Good Sameritan debate is always interesting and could actually lead to the inclusion of religious theory, but I think that the wording is too ambigious.
My top 5 are 4, 2, 1, 6, 10
