Tweet Of The Day: Lincoln-Douglas Debate Edition

Societal morality is, so often, just away to subject people without power to one standard and people with power to...no standard.

— Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) June 26, 2014

2014-2015 Proposed NSDA Lincoln Douglas Debate Resolutions

Via NSD Update, the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) has released its 10 proposed Lincoln Douglas debate resolutions for 2014-2015.

The NSDA will conduct voting through early September. Students will begin debating one of these resolutions in November, another in January, a third in March. One will be chosen for Nationals in June; the last resolution will be debated in September/October 2015.

1. The “right to be forgotten” from internet searches ought to be a civil right.
2. Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.
3. Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.
4. Sin taxes are just.
5. Historic preservation is a legitimate constraint on property rights.
6. United States foreign policy ought to value women’s rights over the pursuit of its economic interests when the two conflict.
7. Justice requires reparations to Black Americans.
8. Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.
9. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should be subject to term limits.
10. Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Kallis's Top 3 2013-2014 Potential Resolutions

I'm not sure I love any of the resolutions, but the following are the one's I'm most inclined to vote for.

A progressive income tax is more just than a flat income tax.

Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is just.

The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

The privacy issues involved with both the storage of non-felons DNA and the NSA are timely and debatable. Further, I'm certain Snowden has a few more bombshells to drop. The tax issue has solid literature on both sides.

Novices should not have problems grasping the concepts behind these resolutions: privacy, fairness, security. More importantly, these resolutions do not give one side all of the angels and puppies and really good stuff while the other side has to debate realism is good. Both sides will have solid advantages and risks of damaging harms.

Kallis's Bottom Three 2013-2014 Potential Resolutions

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.

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:

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.”

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.

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 Public Forum Debate Topic is Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

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!