I've given Kyle and Bo the keys to post directly to this blog. I believe we are going to discuss our top three, our bottom three, and our middle four choices for 2013-14 resolutions.
I'll start at the bottom with the resolution that I loathe: Resolved: The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was immoral.
It's not timely. The young'uns will care as much about Hiroshima as they do Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants. One could argue that subjecting elephants to an Alpine winter is or is not immoral. I doubt they'd see a difference.
More importantly, this about the "atomic bombing" being immoral. The nuclear bomb does make Hiroshima and Nagasaki historically significant, but other bombing campaigns also killed thousands. Nearly 25,000 people died in the Dresden bombings. Over 40,000 died in Hamburg. Nearly 100,000 died in the Toyko bombings. Even if the Hiroshima bombing caused the deaths to happen more quickly, it's tough to argue that these deaths are somehow so uniquely immoral that debaters should not discuss Dresden or Toyko because these bombings were not done with "atomic" weapons. I have trouble discerning why dying in a fireball is not immoral but dying of radiation sickness is.
The debate will also feature dueling history books that will not agree on the basic facts. Respected historians argue about whether Truman or other Americans knew the destructive nature of the bomb. They also argue about what people believed about the nature of Japanese resistance. It's difficult to debate moral issues if the basic facts are in question. I really hate losing rounds because the judge in the back likes or hates Howard Zinn or some other historian of note.
My second least favorite resolution is Resolved: Hypersexualized representations by the media are immoral. First, prudish parents are not fun to deal with when the words "hyper" and "sexualized" are combined. School web filters are worse. Second, when does a "representation" move from being "sexualized" to "hypersexualized"? I would rather have a root canal than listen to "the representation was "over sexualized but not hypersexualized." If I want to hear that type of Topicality debate, I'll judge policy. Third, "the media" is a rather vague term. Does it mean pornography as the genre is commonly understood? Does it refer to a news report about Miley Cyrus VMA performance? Either way, I don't want to spend two months coaching it.
I'm drawing straws for this one. I don't really hate it. On a different day, I could swap it out with one of my middle 4: Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. The need for organs is certainly a more timely discussion than Hiroshima. In some ways, I find the discussion of rights being maintained after one is deceased fascinating albeit morbidly so. That said, it strikes me that many of the objections will be religious. Those debates seldom go well. Presuming consent doesn't necessarily mean that people can't opt out of the program. I'm hard pressed to see why a utopia that granted all of its citizens a high standard of living, good health care, equality for all, and a fulfilling job, but did not make the presumption inherent in this resolution would be unjust. If the resolution seems that one-sided, I think we should approach it with caution.
