The 2017-2018 NSDA Potential LD Resolution Final Sort

Now for the final overview. Fuller analysis of each or below. As I said on the first post for this year's topics, young Mr. Downey has the keys and can weigh in at his leisure.

I am tempted to use knife reviewer Nick Shabazz's rubric, "the good, the great, the bad, and the ugly," but predicting what will happen with future resolutions is always a dice roll, so I am not going to declare any of these as great. Therefore, I am going to modify it to Good, Meh, Bad, Ugly

The Good

Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.

Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources. (Would be Meh because it's narrow, but the Trump administration's war on leakers keeps escalating, so there will be new issues weekly.)

The Meh list includes

Resolved: A democracy ought to require the separation of church and state. 

Resolved: In the United States, workers ought to have a civil right to unionize. 

Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system. (I like it, but I remember it getting old fast.)

Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. (Another one that might fit in the good category, but I'm feeling cantankerous)

The bad includes the following:

Resolved: In the United States, non-human animals ought to have legally protected rights.

Resolved: The non-therapeutic use of human enhancement technologies is immoral.

Resolved: The United States’ use of targeted killing in foreign countries is unjust.  

The only truly ugly resolution on the list is Resolved: Privileged individuals ought not appropriate the culture of a marginalized group. If I am feeling really cynical, I might argue that the phrasing points to reasons why Trump won the election.

A Minor Musing About The NSDA's 2017-2018 Potential Development Assistance Resolution

 Finally, Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.

There are a few defintional arguments, especially the term "development assistance" that might cloud the debate, but on the whole this is an old fashioned LD resolution that allows the discussion of a good number of political and philosophical arguments. Do nations have obligations to those beyond their borders? Do nations have obligations at all? What creates an obligation? Does an obligation exist if the recipient cannot properly use it because that nation lacks the resources or control over its territory? What is the source of a nation's obligation to other nations? Further, one can argue that giving developmental aid might be a good idea and further a nation's self interest, but there is no obligation to do so.

All of the questions produce good debate even though it is frequently trod ground. There are plenty of practical discussions about poverty, starvation, migrant communities, refugees that could also fit. If memory serves, many of the poorest nations are also the one's most adversely affected by refugee influxes.

The wording "other nations" does cause a bit of concern. One can anticipate negs arguing that the resolution obligates the United States to give developmental aid to areas of Canada or that that China is now obligated to give developmental aid to Native American communities. That seems to be a minor concern.

A Minor Musing About The NSDA's Potential 2017-2018 Targeted Killings Resolution

Continuing on to the resolution: Resolved: The United States’ use of targeted killing in foreign countries is unjust. 

It's clear that the U.S. has used targeted killings to some effect. It's also clear that some of the targeting has been ......less precise than it ought to have been. (I think that's a workable euphemism.) There will be facts aplenty to support both sides.

That said, I do worry about ground. It's easy to put together the arguments that killing innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is unjust. The more critical minded debaters should be able to make an easy case that calling humans "collateral damage" as reports about some targeted killings do is unjust and reason enough to affirm.

Negatives on the other hand are reduced to speculation such as the killing of Terrorist X saved thousands. There is no firm way to prove that argument. Like the arguments about the bombing of Nagasaki and the bar stool favorite "if you could go back in time and kill the infant Hitler, would you?" this resolution gives the negs only speculative utilitarian arguments.

I believe I have only one more to go and I'll do my ratings for all ten

Minor Musings About The NSDA's Proposed 2017-2018 Universal Basic Income Resolution

Next, Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. 

I'm not sure that this one is different in kind or degree from the January/February 2015 resolution
Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I am going to quote myself from an earlier post about another potential resolutions:

. . . , this resolution seems to tick all of the boxes. There are social justice issues and economic issues and individual rights and are corporations people issues. . . .[In addition to] the perennial Hobbes v Locke debate, we can get a classic Adam Smith v Karl Marx debate. The young'uns can run justice with whatever definition they like. Downey's young'uns can run Rand and my young'uns can read our Rand blocks. Fun Times!

Once again, we're confronted with a quasi-policy resolution, but because there is no stock issue demand for a plan text, the debate can and likely will get muddled quickly. How a universal basic income is initiated is important, but LDers will be able to spike out of nearly all specifics by claiming "that's not how the universal basic income I'm advocating will work."

That said, there should be plenty of research. In addition to recent work that advocates the "universal basic income" as a response to jobs lost to technology, Libertarian Charles Murray advocated that the government eliminate social programs and cut a check to to every U. S. citizen.

A Minor Musing About The NSDA's Potential 2017-2018 Proposed Human Enhancement Technologies Resolution

Moving on to Resolved: The non-therapeutic use of human enhancement technologies is immoral.

Given that a Wisconsin company is offering to implant an RFID chip into employees hands so that employees can access vending machines. this one seems timely. (Trust me, accessing a vending machine when one has no cash would turn any normal human into an enhanced being.)

The inevitable "Mark of the Beast" arguments aside, a recent paper set up the potential debate:

A world where everyone is more intelligent will have a cumulative benefit for society, unless of course there is a trade-off between characteristics, say where increased capacity for logic is to the detriment of an ability to empathize with people or where altruism decreases. While there is no evidence to support this concern, it is important to be mindful of the complexity of some neurological constructs—such as intelligence—which may imply improving the functionality of a number different forms (emotional intelligence, rational intelligence), before one can reasonably claim that it has been improved.

The quotation sets up two major concerns that this resolution raises. First, nearly all arguments about the "non-therapeutic use of human enhancement technologies" will be "what if" or "slippery slope." In addition, many of the "scientific" arguments will be stated with certainty that the science may not necessarily support.

Cutting edge science arguments also pose a problem because debaters, judges, and coaches are likely behind the curve on all of these issues. Evaluating cutting edge arguments may not be our strong suit.

I have two other concerns. The first will be the definitional debate. The article linked to contains the following caveat:

Alternatively, genetic enhancement is likely to have different implications from using a pharmaceutical product or a prosthetic device to yield a similar effect. Indeed, debates about the ethics of human enhancement are already so nuanced as to be focused on specific kinds of enhancement, such as neurological, biochemical, or physiological modifications.

In addition to the arguments about whether "physiological" or "biochemical" is or is not  "human enhancement"  will likely get old quick. Further, the arguments that "we should negate because two of the three are ok even if the other is really immoral" will also get old quickly.

Finally, the moral arguments that have been run lately have bothered me. I still am not certain why. This sentence, however,  resonated, at least for now.

There are not always formal ethical codes that govern our existence. Instead people make decisions based on loose, often poorly defined moral frameworks, which nevertheless may guide their actions and organize social conduct.

In short, it's unclear when people apply moral codes, and this resolution may make debaters fit the proverbial square theory into the proverbial round situational hole.

Rankings and voting recommendations will follow the final post on the potential 2017 topics.