Obama Learns Lessons High School Debaters Already Know

This New York Times article make it clear that President Obama made several mistakes in the debate that most novice debaters in South Dakota have been coached to avoid.

First, frequent practice is a necessary element of success; poor practice equals poor perfromance:

Like other presidents, Mr. Obama’s debate preparations were hindered by his day job, his practice sessions often canceled or truncated because of events, advisers said. One session took place just after he addressed a service for the four Americans slain in Libya, leaving him distracted.

Second, one should respect the activity and one's opponents:

Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship. He did not do all that well in 2008 but benefited from Senator John McCain’s grumpy performances. Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.

Third, one has to adapt to the situation in the round. The judge and the competitor may not do what one anticipates.

On stage, Mr. Obama seemed thrown off as Mr. Romney emphasized elements of his agenda that seemed more moderate and was surprised that the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, did not pose more pointed questions. The president’s team had decided in advance not to raise Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, aides said, but Mr. Obama held back on other attack lines they had intended to use. The base wanted him “to gut Romney,” one adviser said, but swing voters hate that and he was seeking a balance. Few thought he found it.

Fourth, knowing how well one did is often difficult:

Mr. Obama walked off the stage thinking he at least had gotten in some of his points. “This was a terrific debate,” he said in the closing minutes.

“He knew that Romney had had a decent night as well,” Mr. Axelrod said later. “But it’s very hard when you’re standing there. It’s hard when you’re up there to judge it completely.”

Because Every Debater Likes Pens . . . .

Lifehacker recently asked readers to vote on their favorite budget pens. Pilot pens makers of one of my new favorites, the G-Tec-C and the ubiquitous G2s took top honors. I was a little suprised that the Zebra F-301 did not get a bit more love.

The complete article is here. This chart covers the results.

November 2012 Topics Announced

The National Forensics League has published it November/December Lincoln Douglas Topic and it November Public Forum Topic.

The LD Topic is Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens,

The Public Forum Debate Topic is Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

The  cynic in me believes that we have the LDers will get to debate a policy topic without a specified actor and the PFers will get to debate hedge DAs from the policy back files. Oh Joy! 

A Few Musings About The 2012-13 NFL Lincoln Douglas Debate Topics

I may be getting too old and cynical, but it does seem to me the the National Forensics League has confused LD and Public Forum debate topics for October.

PF topics tend to cover topics that every citizen has an opinion about. The October PF topic has that element, but it also contains an explicitly moral component:

Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Meanwhile, LDers who traditionally debate moral issues will be spend September and October debating

Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

Although there are moral issues that can be discussed, this is an issue that can debated in a bar room with out any reference to ethical theory.

Some of the choices for 2012-13 have the same problem.

A. Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

Although this resolution lacks easily identifiable moral components, students should be able to argue about the purpose of governments, the various social contract theories,  and the what recourse citizens ought to have when a government fails. Also, it might be fun to revisit Federalist and anti-Federalist debate during the Constitutional adoption era.

B. Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups.

This is a serious and important issue. I don't want to debate it or judge it.

C. Resolved: United States Supreme Court justices should be subject to term limits.

This is a PF resolution. I screamed when the NFL creates LD resolutions that turn LDers into one person policy debaters. This resolution should be rejected because it turns LDers into one person PF debaters. I hope that PFers get to debate in 2012-14


D. Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses

This resolution has a bit of everything. The ethical term justified and moral issue of human rights abuses. The role of the state and what citizens and nations can and should do when confronting immoral actors. Finally, one can debate the US as hegemon and the moral and pragmatic implications of that role.

A few novices heads might explode, Some varsity debates might get muddy. Debates between good debaters will be more enjoyable than under many of the other resolutions on this list.

E. Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Yes, I am going to repeat myself: Although this resolution lacks easily identifiable moral components, students should be able to argue about the purpose of governments, the various social contract theories,  and the what recourse citizens ought to have when a government fails. The debate about an a state compelling an individual to participate

F. Resolved: On balance, the privatization of civil services serves the public interest.

A resolutions that Libertarians will love on the aff and Socialists will love on the neg. The traditional LD elements are all here. One obvious red flag is the possibility that many of the debates will boil down to questioning whether the sources are biased, Heritage good/bad vs. Brookings good/bad.

G. Resolved: On balance, labor unions in the United States are beneficial.

Why yes, I am going to repeat myself again: this is a PF resolution. This resolution should be rejected because it turns LDers into one person PF debaters.

H. Resolved: The Unites States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

If I'm feeling generous, this resolution allows debate of the proper role of government and whether citizens have a right to government provided health care. Further, while American exceptionalism is frequently reserved for discussions that compare the US to other countries, that concept can be part of this debate.

If I'm not feeling generous, this is PF resolution.

I. Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

An oldie that's been done a few times. Neither side gets to claim the glory of the angels. Students get a Rawls vs. Nozick debate (sort of). It allows Madison from the Federalist to be combined with Hobbes. The last time we debated this one, the oppressive government side seemed fixated on "better the devil we know" argument because there's never been a society with no government. Each debater will need to set parameters.

J. Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

Another repeat. This one is my favorite US specific resolution. It allows for a several moral components to be debated within a familiar context.

The 2012-13 NFL Topic List

The National Forensics League has released its proposed LD debate resolutions for the 2012-13 school year.  Member schools will vote for the resolutions to be debated in September/October, November/December, January/February, March/April, and the 2013 National Tournament Resolution.
Lincoln Douglas Topic List for 2012 – 2013
Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.
Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups.
Resolved: United States Supreme Court justices should be subject to term limits.
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.
Resolved: On balance, the privatization of civil services serves the public interest.
Resolved: On balance, labor unions in the United States are beneficial.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.
Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.