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.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Monday, October 8, 2012
Obama Learns Lessons High School Debaters Already Know
This New York Times article make it clear that President Obama made several mistakes in the debate that most novice debaters in South Dakota have been coached to avoid.
First, frequent practice is a necessary element of success; poor practice equals poor perfromance:
First, frequent practice is a necessary element of success; poor practice equals poor perfromance:
Like other presidents, Mr. Obama’s debate preparations were hindered by his day job, his practice sessions often canceled or truncated because of events, advisers said. One session took place just after he addressed a service for the four Americans slain in Libya, leaving him distracted.Second, one should respect the activity and one's opponents:
Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship. He did not do all that well in 2008 but benefited from Senator John McCain’s grumpy performances. Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.Third, one has to adapt to the situation in the round. The judge and the competitor may not do what one anticipates.
On stage, Mr. Obama seemed thrown off as Mr. Romney emphasized elements of his agenda that seemed more moderate and was surprised that the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, did not pose more pointed questions. The president’s team had decided in advance not to raise Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, aides said, but Mr. Obama held back on other attack lines they had intended to use. The base wanted him “to gut Romney,” one adviser said, but swing voters hate that and he was seeking a balance. Few thought he found it.Fourth, knowing how well one did is often difficult:
Mr. Obama walked off the stage thinking he at least had gotten in some of his points. “This was a terrific debate,” he said in the closing minutes.
“He knew that Romney had had a decent night as well,” Mr. Axelrod said later. “But it’s very hard when you’re standing there. It’s hard when you’re up there to judge it completely.”
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)