The complete article is here. This chart covers the results.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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.
The complete article is here. This chart covers the results.
Monday, October 1, 2012
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 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!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Comments From Some South Dakota Coaches' About 2011-2012 LD Resolutions.
From Mitch Gaffer
Not a bad crop of resolutions this time. I would suggest the following comments for camp and convention consideration (use comments as you see appropriate):
1. Good resolution framing a key aspect on the war on terrorism. A national debate this country needs to have. Good LD issues come up. National security vs. individual legal rights. Society issues vs. individual rights issues. This should make for good clash, possibly avoiding both sides from claiming the same value. I like this one and will be rating it high in any fianl vote.
2. I like this one. We've debated this resolution before. The resolution contain many 'qualifying terms' that can be used in analysis and debate (such as 'deliberate', 'deadly' force, and 'repeated'.) Both sides may be able to claim the value of justice but what justice is and what is 'right' is certainly debatable.
3. Please, let's not debate gun control. I see more interesting debate in other resolutions.
4. I like this resolution, but could have limited appeal, especially for new LDers. Does set up good clash. State vs. individual. Collective good v.s individual rights. Being a legal issue battled in the courts, eminent domain should have lots of evidence/support.
5. Taxes is not always an interesting issue, especially for newbies to LD. I'm not crazy about this one but can see the clash. I just hope the clash is more than just estate tax policy (How much is fair? etc.) Tax policy can have some good value debate (I.E.- obligation to government, individual choice/freedom, etc.) Still...taxes...really?!
6. I like this resolution. It looks at the purpose of government and its use of budget monies. This can lead to the goals of what government resources and effort can (or ought) to be achieved. Arguments dealing with social fairness and personal responsibility can also be used.
7. Although I could learn to like this rsolution, I don't think it will end up rated highly in the end. This resolution could end being a 'policy-type' look at different energy production methods and what there impact is. Certainly a cost benefit analysis of energy production can yield a variety of value oriented positions, this could degenerate into the harms of oil production vs. the economy. Not exactly where I really want to go in LD.
8. I like resolutions that look at current and tech related concerns. This one does. Being computer related this one can be more appealing to novice LDers. Beyond the good study of some standard legal ideas (probable cause, search warrents and related law), it also brings in issues of computer data, 'remote' searches and how they differ from home server based searches. Besides, anytime we can apply morals to computers, I think we are teaching something valuable to students.
9. Could be a good resolution ONLY if students research beyond the recent Osama bin Laden mission. Only by looking at more; such as other target programs (Pheonix program in Vietnam, for example) or their use by 'evil' authoritarian regimes can this resolution expand into meaningful debate. I like this one and will probably rate it highly...and then will challenge my kids to really go beyond the surface. Let's look at the core reasons behind these missions and use the mission examples for support. This needs to be a debate about the principles of these mission...not just of one particular mission.
10. This one seems to be the same as resolution 6, except from an individual obligation perspective rather than from government. I think I like 6 better...but I'n not sure yet...
From Bob Trzynka
I would agree that, on par, the resolutions aren't too bad. A couple of dogs, but here are my two cents for camp purposes:
1: Good resolution. Should foster good debate, but I would also caution that it could lead to careless and jingoistic debates too. From a camp perspective, it may be a good teaching moments so that the debaters can understand the difference between substantive due process rights and procedural due process rights. Further, the wording of the resolution appears to suggest that the United States does not afford these "due process" rights currently. Most (and by most, I mean virtually all) high court decisions indicate that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded both procedural and substantive due process rights, absent some limited - exigent - circumstances. A second tack to look into on this resolution would be to consider our international treaty obligations, both from a human rights perspective and a military/diplomatic perspective.
2. I think the mens rea component of this resolution is interesting. Probably a good way to frame this resolution to the kids is the classic trolley logic problem. Probably a lot of clash between telological/utilitarian concepts and a more deontological approach.
3. Frankly, I agree that this is a bad resolution, but for different reasons than Mitch. The court cases currently discussing this topic have concluded that it is an individual right, but they're pretty tortuous to read. Additionally, this resolution has a major judge bias creep problem. Danger, Will Robinson..., danger!
4. While I, personally, love this particular resolution; for high school students, it is a MESS. There is a huge conflict over eminent domain and the limits that the Constitution currently allows. My concern with this resolution is that it will be overly superficial because it would be impossible to even scratch the surface of this topic in the timeframe of a typical LD round. Nonetheless, Locke seems the most logical starting place for folks on this resolution. For an interesting twist, though, you might want to look to the postmodern marxists.
5. Could be interesting, but I think it's too messy. Neo-marxists, util, Foucault, Rousseau, Hobbes would all be good. Could be some interesting perspectives from Aquinas too.
6. Neo-marxists again.... Also, Ronald Dworkin might be an interesting resource.
7. There is a substantial amount of material on this topic in the environmental law area. Several journals dedicated just to this topic.
8. Huge Fourth Amendment pitfalls here. I would suggest focusing, from a pedagogical perspective, on what probable cause actually means and the myriad exceptions to it. Interesting arguments are to be found in the warrantless wiretapping cases before the US Supreme Court.
9. Trolley thought experiment, part deux. Classic util/kant clash. Yawn.
10. This resolution is way too broad. What does "need" mean? Financial, emotional, personal? All might qualify. And, are there some instances of need that obligate and others that do not? How does that affect resolutional analysis? I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it.
From Mike Larson
I also think they are not that bad.
1. I also think that this is a good resolution. I think we had something like it as a nationals topic a few years ago. I do think it provides plenty of good ground on both sides.
2. I would also agree that this one is a good topic. It is nice to have a good morality debate.
3. I also don't like this one. The resolution is a little too simplistic. I think debate is possible.
4. This was a resolution about 6 years ago, and those LDers still love talking about it. I have to disagree with Bob on this one. This is something that is specific to SD with the pipeline debate. The novice debaters can really get into the topic. I highly hope that this will be a Nov/Dec resolution.
5. HATE IT! There are much better ways to focus on tax justice.
6. This is a much better way of tackling economic justice/ free market debate. No a bad resolution, but not a great one.
7. I am okay with this resolution, but not my favorite.
8. I think this one is too lop-sided to the neg. The idea that there is no privacy at all on the web is not a winnable position.
9. This is good to use for the purpose of exploring what is possible in a resolution, but since it doesn't limit itself to the US, I see it getting ugle fast. Don't like it.
10. Good Sameritan debate is always interesting and could actually lead to the inclusion of religious theory, but I think that the wording is too ambigious.
My top 5 are 4, 2, 1, 6, 10
Not a bad crop of resolutions this time. I would suggest the following comments for camp and convention consideration (use comments as you see appropriate):
1. Good resolution framing a key aspect on the war on terrorism. A national debate this country needs to have. Good LD issues come up. National security vs. individual legal rights. Society issues vs. individual rights issues. This should make for good clash, possibly avoiding both sides from claiming the same value. I like this one and will be rating it high in any fianl vote.
2. I like this one. We've debated this resolution before. The resolution contain many 'qualifying terms' that can be used in analysis and debate (such as 'deliberate', 'deadly' force, and 'repeated'.) Both sides may be able to claim the value of justice but what justice is and what is 'right' is certainly debatable.
3. Please, let's not debate gun control. I see more interesting debate in other resolutions.
4. I like this resolution, but could have limited appeal, especially for new LDers. Does set up good clash. State vs. individual. Collective good v.s individual rights. Being a legal issue battled in the courts, eminent domain should have lots of evidence/support.
5. Taxes is not always an interesting issue, especially for newbies to LD. I'm not crazy about this one but can see the clash. I just hope the clash is more than just estate tax policy (How much is fair? etc.) Tax policy can have some good value debate (I.E.- obligation to government, individual choice/freedom, etc.) Still...taxes...really?!
6. I like this resolution. It looks at the purpose of government and its use of budget monies. This can lead to the goals of what government resources and effort can (or ought) to be achieved. Arguments dealing with social fairness and personal responsibility can also be used.
7. Although I could learn to like this rsolution, I don't think it will end up rated highly in the end. This resolution could end being a 'policy-type' look at different energy production methods and what there impact is. Certainly a cost benefit analysis of energy production can yield a variety of value oriented positions, this could degenerate into the harms of oil production vs. the economy. Not exactly where I really want to go in LD.
8. I like resolutions that look at current and tech related concerns. This one does. Being computer related this one can be more appealing to novice LDers. Beyond the good study of some standard legal ideas (probable cause, search warrents and related law), it also brings in issues of computer data, 'remote' searches and how they differ from home server based searches. Besides, anytime we can apply morals to computers, I think we are teaching something valuable to students.
9. Could be a good resolution ONLY if students research beyond the recent Osama bin Laden mission. Only by looking at more; such as other target programs (Pheonix program in Vietnam, for example) or their use by 'evil' authoritarian regimes can this resolution expand into meaningful debate. I like this one and will probably rate it highly...and then will challenge my kids to really go beyond the surface. Let's look at the core reasons behind these missions and use the mission examples for support. This needs to be a debate about the principles of these mission...not just of one particular mission.
10. This one seems to be the same as resolution 6, except from an individual obligation perspective rather than from government. I think I like 6 better...but I'n not sure yet...
From Bob Trzynka
I would agree that, on par, the resolutions aren't too bad. A couple of dogs, but here are my two cents for camp purposes:
1: Good resolution. Should foster good debate, but I would also caution that it could lead to careless and jingoistic debates too. From a camp perspective, it may be a good teaching moments so that the debaters can understand the difference between substantive due process rights and procedural due process rights. Further, the wording of the resolution appears to suggest that the United States does not afford these "due process" rights currently. Most (and by most, I mean virtually all) high court decisions indicate that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded both procedural and substantive due process rights, absent some limited - exigent - circumstances. A second tack to look into on this resolution would be to consider our international treaty obligations, both from a human rights perspective and a military/diplomatic perspective.
2. I think the mens rea component of this resolution is interesting. Probably a good way to frame this resolution to the kids is the classic trolley logic problem. Probably a lot of clash between telological/utilitarian concepts and a more deontological approach.
3. Frankly, I agree that this is a bad resolution, but for different reasons than Mitch. The court cases currently discussing this topic have concluded that it is an individual right, but they're pretty tortuous to read. Additionally, this resolution has a major judge bias creep problem. Danger, Will Robinson..., danger!
4. While I, personally, love this particular resolution; for high school students, it is a MESS. There is a huge conflict over eminent domain and the limits that the Constitution currently allows. My concern with this resolution is that it will be overly superficial because it would be impossible to even scratch the surface of this topic in the timeframe of a typical LD round. Nonetheless, Locke seems the most logical starting place for folks on this resolution. For an interesting twist, though, you might want to look to the postmodern marxists.
5. Could be interesting, but I think it's too messy. Neo-marxists, util, Foucault, Rousseau, Hobbes would all be good. Could be some interesting perspectives from Aquinas too.
6. Neo-marxists again.... Also, Ronald Dworkin might be an interesting resource.
7. There is a substantial amount of material on this topic in the environmental law area. Several journals dedicated just to this topic.
8. Huge Fourth Amendment pitfalls here. I would suggest focusing, from a pedagogical perspective, on what probable cause actually means and the myriad exceptions to it. Interesting arguments are to be found in the warrantless wiretapping cases before the US Supreme Court.
9. Trolley thought experiment, part deux. Classic util/kant clash. Yawn.
10. This resolution is way too broad. What does "need" mean? Financial, emotional, personal? All might qualify. And, are there some instances of need that obligate and others that do not? How does that affect resolutional analysis? I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it.
From Mike Larson
I also think they are not that bad.
1. I also think that this is a good resolution. I think we had something like it as a nationals topic a few years ago. I do think it provides plenty of good ground on both sides.
2. I would also agree that this one is a good topic. It is nice to have a good morality debate.
3. I also don't like this one. The resolution is a little too simplistic. I think debate is possible.
4. This was a resolution about 6 years ago, and those LDers still love talking about it. I have to disagree with Bob on this one. This is something that is specific to SD with the pipeline debate. The novice debaters can really get into the topic. I highly hope that this will be a Nov/Dec resolution.
5. HATE IT! There are much better ways to focus on tax justice.
6. This is a much better way of tackling economic justice/ free market debate. No a bad resolution, but not a great one.
7. I am okay with this resolution, but not my favorite.
8. I think this one is too lop-sided to the neg. The idea that there is no privacy at all on the web is not a winnable position.
9. This is good to use for the purpose of exploring what is possible in a resolution, but since it doesn't limit itself to the US, I see it getting ugle fast. Don't like it.
10. Good Sameritan debate is always interesting and could actually lead to the inclusion of religious theory, but I think that the wording is too ambigious.
My top 5 are 4, 2, 1, 6, 10
Friday, June 24, 2011
2011-2012 LD Resolutions
I'll having the LDers at the SDSU debate camp break down some of these, so I'd like South Dakota coaches to give me an idea of which ones they prefer. I don't promise to follow all suggestions, but I hope that we all agree on a few. I willl be using one of the recycled ones for the camp resolution.
Also, leave some comments about what you think of the resolutions. The vote isn't that far off and speech convention has been too late for us to discuss potential resolutions there.
Victory Briefs has started the discussion here and here.
This is the slate of resolutions available for November/December 2011 – September/October 2012.
1. Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.
2. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
3. Resolved: In the United States, possession of handguns ought not be an individual right.
4. Resolved: The use of eminent domain for private economic development is just.
5. Resolved: Estate taxes are just.
6. Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.
7. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.
8. Resolved: In the United States, law enforcement ought to be required to have probable cause to search data an individual has stored on remote servers.
9. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
10. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Also, leave some comments about what you think of the resolutions. The vote isn't that far off and speech convention has been too late for us to discuss potential resolutions there.
Victory Briefs has started the discussion here and here.
This is the slate of resolutions available for November/December 2011 – September/October 2012.
1. Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.
2. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
3. Resolved: In the United States, possession of handguns ought not be an individual right.
4. Resolved: The use of eminent domain for private economic development is just.
5. Resolved: Estate taxes are just.
6. Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.
7. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.
8. Resolved: In the United States, law enforcement ought to be required to have probable cause to search data an individual has stored on remote servers.
9. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
10. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The 2010-11 NFL Topics
South Dakotat will debate two of the following topics during the 2010-2011 season. One in November-December and the other in January-February. Four students will debate one of these at the 2011 NFL National Tournament. Please leave comments about the pros and cons of each resolution.
Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.
Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.
Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.
Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.
Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.
Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.
Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.
Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.
Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.
Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.
Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.
Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.
Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.
Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)