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! 

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.