NSDA 2015-16 Resolutions: Three of a Kind

Once again, these three fall into the "I don't hate them" category:

In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.

Democracies ought to incorporate provisions for legal secession into their national constitutions.

The privatization of civil services undermines democracy.

All posit an imagined or purported democracy and ask what that democracy should  do and what its citizens ought to be able to do if the government fails. It's a debate worth having and what a citizen values will determine how that citizen responds to the question.

There are bits of problematic phrasing. For example, "perceived" prompts the question whether the injustice actually exists along with the question whether the person perceiving the alleged injustice is a competent actor, but still what one should do if the law fails is a valid question that should produce good debate.

I suppose the legal succession resolution is fraught with "devil in details" problems. How one answers the question may depend upon how many citizens it takes to propose succession and how difficult the terms are. I suppose some cynical young'uns might even run a plan suggesting that West River or East River South Dakota secede form each other. That said, the idea that democratic government is willing to begin by creating principles for a democratic disillusion of the state intrigues me and debating whether a government should deliberately sow the seeds of its own destruction seems to provide for some good value debate.

The third one falls into the nature of the democracy, the services a democratic should provide, and the role of the citizen. These broad issues have been debated before, but off the top of my head, I don't recall debating this specific questions.previously. Further, it seems like a question that would grow and develop over two months.

To sum up the past 4 posts, I will give my debaters the choice of voting for the the three in this post and the four in the previous post. I'll vote for their favorites and go from there. I am not enthusiastic about any of these but I strongly dislike on the three mentioned covered in yesterday's posts.

2015-16 NSDA Resolutions That I Don't Hate

These resolutions have potential.

First, Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power sets up the long term consequences of nuclear waste and the risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima against sitting in the dark without a cell phone, continued high carbon emissions,  and global warming. It seems like a balanced debate but may get bogged down in the technical aspects of some alternative energies,

The cynic in me believes Donald Trump may have ruined the resolution Immigration ought to be recognized as a human right. On the other hand, the situation in Europe, America's differing treatment of Cuban and Mexican immigrants makes the discussion timely. The power of the state to regulate and defend its borders as opposed to an individual's human right to life, liberty and property makes for good debate. I suppose a few young'uns will find an "eliminate all borders" K or CP and muddy the waters but at least there will be value debate.

In the United States, campaigns that support candidates for public office ought to be financed exclusively by public funds allows young'uns to quote Charles Dickens's Mr. Bumble and assert that the law, or in this case, the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision is an ass. On the other hand, having all campaigns from local school boards to the Presidency does seem  to be overkill. The role of government, American's responsibility as a citizen, and class divides will ensure more than enough quality literature. I do worry about debating this one during a presidential election cycle when money in politics will be a key issue. If the debater is on the side opposing the judge's beliefs, it may be an uphill battle to get the ballot.

Speaking of money, Corporations ought to value their responsibility to shareholders over the public interest when the two conflict allows one to argue capitalism versus whatever social contract still exists. It's a debate that's been done before, but I don't recall having it in a few years. Besides, it will let young Mr. Downey and me continue our debate about whether Ayn Rand is the most evil philosopher of the 20th Century.

The 2015=2016 Resolution Guaranteed To Produce More Heat Than Light

People have certainty about the music they like, their favorite soda, and how they feel about abortion and guns. These beliefs are the stuff of lunch room, water cooler, and if one is old enough, bar arguments.

The proposed resolution In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned will boil down to the Second Amendment is absolute versus handguns kill. The framework may be more organized that the typical lunch table food fight, but the arguments will be the same.

2015-2016 Potential Resolutions That SeemToo Policy Oriented

These two resolutions may be the one's I fear the most. 

The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing.

They are interesting and timely. They may even have value components. The devil, as the cliche reminds, is in the details, however.  

How the U.S. promotes democracy in the Middle East is as important as the decision to promote it. The plan matters as much as the values underlying the plan that implements the pricing. Should the US invade Syria, reject the Iranian Nuclear Deal, accept the Iranian nuclear deal, buy more oil, buy less oil, increase aid to Israel, eliminate aid to Israel, none of the above, or all of the above? One could compose a similar list for carbon pricing.

Granted, a policy resolution would specify "The United States Federal Government" not merely the "United States" but that difference is minimal. The resolutions still demand the United States Government act and debaters show that US promotion of democracy in the Middle East or US adoption of carbon pricing will produce positive results. In short, whatever value premises are proposed each round will default to a consequential framework and I don't want to spend two months arguing only consequentialism.

2015-16 Potential NSDA LD Resolutions

This will be the first in the series of posts about the potential Lincoln Douglas resolutions that high school debaters may be debating during the upcoming season and in September/October 2016. Coaches have until September 11, 2015 to vote.

This first post will just list the topics. Subsequent posts will give brief analyses of each resolution

A. The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

B. Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

C. In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.

D. Immigration ought to be recognized as a human right.

E. In the United States, campaigns that support candidates for public office ought to be financed exclusively by public funds.

F. Democracies ought to incorporate provisions for legal secession into their national constitutions.

G. The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing.

H. Corporations ought to value their responsibility to shareholders over the public interest when the two conflict.

I. The privatization of civil services undermines democracy.

J. In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.