A Minor Musing About The 2016-2017 Proposed Foreign Insurgents Topic

Resolved: The United States ought to end its provision of arms to foreign insurgents.

I suppose this post's title will put me on some NSA watch list, certain foreign insurgents not being the most popular group of people at present.

I am optimistically ambivalent about this one. Granted the vague nature of it might provide vague clash, and nothing is more frightening that five consecutive weekends of vague clash. Also, I am old enough to remember when the general public made semantic arguments about "freedom fighters." The term "foreign insurgents" seems open to all sorts of language kritiks.

On the other hand, this resolution allows for arguments and clash across the political spectrum. Neocons will of course have plenty of articles and examples of how the world would be a better place if only the right group of insurgents had been given a few more land mines. Those who love Noam Chomsky can find plenty of support for the idea that arming insurgents is just another example of American imperialism at its worst. If one wants to run Richard Rorty's pragmatism, Amazon has a book for you.

I am tired of typing "the wording of this resolution makes it a policy resolution," but that statement applies for this resolution. However, off the top of my head, I can't think of LD debating a version of this resolution lately, so I would like to give it a shot, even at the risk of Hedge DAs disguised as cases.

A Minor Musing About The NSDA 2016 Proposed Rome Statute Resolution

Resolved: The United States ought to become party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The one rates a meh.

The Rome Statute gives the court jurisdiction over "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole": "The crime of genocide; Crimes against humanity; War crimes; The crime of aggression."

The US's refusal to sign is apparently based on worries that "the Rome Statute created a seriously flawed institution that lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability to the U.N. Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states in some circumstances."

Without adding the words "Federal Government" after "United States" in the resolution, this wording creates a policy resolution. The federal government will ratify the treaty that makes the US a party to the Rome Statute.

Affs will have plenty of ground. Extreme nihilists excepted, crimes against humanity have little support.

The negs will likely respond with an LD version of a DA. Policy debate having appropriated nuclear war and extinction scenarios, negs will likely argue that ratification means the US will be "headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. . . .Old Testament. . . real wrath of God type stuff. . . .Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!. . . Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave!. . .Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

On a more serious note, this topic has a lot of nuance that may be difficult to develop in 13 minutes of speaking time.

A Minor Musing About the NSDA Proposedl 2016-2017 Civil Liberties Resolution

Resolved A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

This resolution is probably my favorite of all the proposed 2016-2017 resolutions. Those who want to default to a utilitarian calculus may do so to their hearts' content. Those who wish to engage debates from other philosophical may also do so to their hearts' content. Frameworks and facts will clash and it should be glorious.

More importantly, this will be a great resolution for the novice. The discussion about civil liberties and national security occur frequently in the public sphere. In debate world, the arguments inherent in this resolution--the eternal Star Trek argument about the goods of the many verses the harms to the few--will be covered in nearly every Lincoln-Douglas resolution that students debate.

Personally, I would prefer this one for January and February. I am afraid it will become and March-April or Nats resolution which means most of our students won't get to debate it.

A Minor Musing On The NSDA Proposed 2016-2017 Limiting Qualified Immunity Resolution

Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

When this topic was announced in June, I was ready to dust off my copy of Radly Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop, and tell the young'uns to start prepping their affs. Since then, events in Dallas and Baton Rouge have caused the public debate to degenerate into #blacklivesmatter vs #bluelivesmatter.  Although I believe that our young'uns will be more civil and logical than the folks who currently engage in public discourse about the issue, our young'uns will be relying on some of their information, and those articles will likely generate more heat than light.

This resolution, like many others proposed this year, has policy phrasing. This particular resolution dares/begs/cajoles/demands/craves/desires/needs a solvency mechanism. LD debate as done is South Dakota doesn't demand a plan, so it's going to be really difficult to provide show that solvency will happen if qualified immunity is limited. Police department reviews will still happen; some will be cover-ups. From Rodney King on, communities have been upset with juries' decisions to limit punishment or prosecutors' refusing to indict. Limiting qualified immunity will not change juries or prosecutors.

I will post my final ranking after I finish these quick overviews, but I will likely vote for this one in the March/April or September/October lists, the ones that we don't debate.

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.