First, the rules have changed. In the past, we just checked 5 topics and mailed in the ballot. As in the past, there are 10 topics. The rest of the ballot is different. I think the following 4 points are key. (They may not be key to hedge, however.)
- Indicate your first, second, and third choices for each time slot.
- Repeating topics within a given time slot is not acceptable. However, a topic may be reselected for another time slot.
- A minimum of five different topics must be listed on the entire ballot.
- Fill in all blanks for your ballot to be valid.
This change probably means that South Dakota coaches should vote for the three best options in both November/Decemeber and January/February. We can put in whatever we want on the other options. Frankly, I think it's a bit risky for the NFL to allow people in states that don't compete during a particular resolution to vote those resolutions, but I probably am just a natural skeptic and conspiracy theorist.
I suggest that each coach rank the resolutions 1-10 and give some reasons for each ranking. I'll tabulate stuff before the convention and do another full post with the results.
Anyway, the topics are listed below. You can find the ballot here. The comments are now open.
List of topics:
A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.
B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.
G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.
I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.
J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
9 comments:
I don't know about anyone else, but they had those ballots at the national tournament and said to fill them out. I don't know if I filled them out correctly or not...I also thought that the voting had to be done already.
Just a brief comment here - in looking at the list of resolution options, I like C. (economic inequality) and I. (hate crimes). Some of the others seem to be a little too policy, or too narrow. Resolution C and I seem broad in scope, more value centered with less direct and specific policy implications, and topics that students would find most interesting to discuss.
threebags,
I saw the ballots at Nats too. The NFL website says that the ballots need to be in no later than September 15, 2007, so I'm going with the website.
As far as voting, I don't think that there is a "wrong." In the past, three or four of us emailed back and forth. This series of posts and comments is just an effort to compile more oppinions.
I'm not real impressed with this list. I will agree with "Ron" (presumably Grimsley - but I grant that it could be Burgundy) that "C" (economic equality) is well-worded. I'm actually not a fan of the hate crime debate. Legislating against individual thought is touchy to me and I'm not sure the side that has to advocate that has good ground on which to stand. Resolutions "F" (reconciliation commisions)and "H" (plea bargains) intrigue me because I do not recall such topics being debated recently and I'm tired of the same six LD topic being debated every other year.
Perhaps the one on the list that I find most fascinating for debate would be "B" (historical reparations). Maybe it is the history teacher in me, but I believe there is potential here for excellent clash on the moral vs. practical debate. I also believe there would be a host of real world examples/arguments here and if a debater chose to, they would not even have to step outside the U.S. for examples. Let's face it though, globally, there would be some tremendous examples that could be used.
As you may have deduced, I like the following order: B, C, H, F - in that order.
As with every year, there are some good and bad on this list. I personally like C (limited econ inequality) H (plea bargaining) and B (reparations) as my top 3. After that, I'm not that sold on any of them. If I had to pick, I would go with A (military force to stop nukes) D (kill one to save more) and F (successor governments). But again, none of those three I am that excited about.
I showed the resolutions to my students. They picked B, C, D, H, J. I think it's important to get their feedback as they actually have to debate the topics.
I liked their choices.
I guees that I have put off looking at the topics and making some tentative statements about them as long as possible.
On A: I think that I would have liked this one in 1999, I believe the Bush Doctrine made this a difficult resolution difficult to vote for. I seem to recall that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld claimed that Iraq was a military threat and it was about to aquire nukes. I really don't want to listen to rehashed debates about Iraq. Also, I have some problems with the wording. The prepositional phrase seems to limit the neg. If a nation truly presents a military threat, then a nation should have just cause to use military force even if it doesn't have nuclear aspirations.
On B: I'm intrigued by this one. On a merely idiosyncratic level, I want to know how much 40 acres and a mule are worth with compound interest 142 years after they weren't delivered. On the downside, I'm a bit worried about how many esoteric examples we'll hear. I would guess that we'll hear plenty. On the plus side, this one seems to allow for equal ground. Harms have been done and not been made right. Someone should make things right. On the other hand, the people who are being asked to make things right are more than likely not the people who caused the original harm, but they may have benefited, however inadvertently, from it. This one should be fun stuff.
On C: I like this one in the abstract, but I'm a bit afraid of my eyes glazing over as I listen to mundane economic theory. On the plus side, there should be plenty of stats. It also allows the debate to focus on two "goods." Ending inequality is good. Freedom is good. Some would argue that economic freedom is the freedom that makes all other possible.
On D: The "more" here seems to be problematic. Are the people more innocent than the one's being killed sacrificially? Or are we going to save more people? I'm sure that the framers mean the latter, but as written, both interpretations seem legitimate.
On E: I love the Libertarians who put a statement supporting jury nullification in their platform every year. After all, people should have the ability to vote their conscience and not enforce an unjust law. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the states' rights segregationists who set murderers free. I guess it would make for a good debate for a couple of tournaments.
On F: As far as I can remember, this is a new subject. I guess LDers can debate the Armenian genocide as well as anyone else. I don't want to be petty, but this resolution seems as if it will take 30 seconds to spit out. I think South Africa used this approach a bit. It seems that the resolution could deteriorate into a restorative justice vs retributive justice debate rather quickly, but I might be wrong.
On G: I'm getting sick of hearing myself type, so these next few might be short. I just think that we've dealt with poor nations' economic development before.
On H: Legal topics are usually fun, but this one will probably deal with extremes and get boring rather quickly. I really doubt that the majority of plea bargains allow murders to walk free or send innocent people to jail for life because they parked in a handicap zone and some poor old codger died of heart attack because he had to walk an extra twenty feet. Yet, I'm pretty sure that those are the examples that we'll hear.
On I: I really don't understand the whole concept of hate crimes add ons. Person X is beaten within an inch of her life and her attacker gets 5 years Person Y is beaten within an inch of her life but her attacker is given 20 years because he doesn't like blue skinned Martians and person Y happened to have blue skin. In effect, the law is saying that person X is less valuable to society because no one hates her. I'm confused by both the concept of hate crimes and the previous couple of sentences.
On J: This one just feels too familiar.
I think that I'm a fan of B and F. I hate A, D, and I. I'm ambivalent about the rest, but tonight, I'd go C, G, H, E and J in that order. I'll probably change my mind.
A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.
This is a very current topic that could blow up into our face (pun fully intended) I do agree with leo in the since that I would have liked to have seen the "to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons"
However, students could easily relate to it.
B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
I am not a big fan of thi topic and it is complete bias. I think that it could turn into a racticality arguement or a policy round. (Your suggestion is not topical.) I am running away from this one.
C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
I personally like this one very much. I tink it is clear and straight forward. It paints a very clear picture of the boundries. Social Justice versus fre marketplce. With that said, I do not think it should be a national qualifier topic or a nationals topic. I would like it for a teaching tool to beginning LDers.
D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
The same from above is true for this topic. I think the debate is very clear and the boundries are well established. I good early resolution.
E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
Yuck....best I can say about it. Okay, actually some of my students inteested in the legal process might like it, but I doubt it.
F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.
As one of my students said, (interesting but just sounds like a lot of big words.) I think that says it best for me.
Actually it does go to what is happening right now in Iraq and there could be alot of material on the need to T&R commission versus the criminal prosecutions to heal wounds.
G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
I don't mind this topic too much, but there is a lot of debt relief talk. I don't know if I like the lvel of ground that exists with the topic.
H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.
I also like this topic,and the student involved and interested with law will enjoy it as well. I think there are lots of ways to approach the topic, and I think that it is a little more in depth, making it an interesting quals or nationals topic.
I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.
I agree with Frey on this topic as well. I don't like legislation individual thought.
I fell that that there would be plenty of literature on the topic, but I think it would get old fast.
J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Welcome to policy nightmare. Here are the levels of advantages with affirmative (see Aids inAfrica this year), and here are the DA's I offer you on the negative (See DA offered against generic drugs to Africa.)
I don't want LDers debating policy!
With that said. What do I think? I guess I would go with H, C, D, A.
I had my wife vote on it and explain her line of thought. I will try to put her thoughts into it since she has a better mind for LD and more experience with it.
Mike Larson
I have thought about these myself AND I asked my debaters to comment on them.
I also handed the information over to my new assistant, Michelle Cain for comments.
C - This seems to be the most solid in wording, debateability, etc.
D - It stands out, but like Leo, I am also worried that the word "more" is going to cause definition nightmares for all of us. That in turn will lead to debates that will end with me wanting to hurt myself or others.
H - I like because it has potential for interesting examples where plea bargains were rushed and poorly handled.
B - It could be very interesting. (Leo, did you do the math on the mule and the 40 acres yet?) We could debate teh Black Hills returning to the native tribes!?!?!
F - This may be very interesting. A new idea for LD!!!!!
E - This intrigues me, as I just received a summons for jury duty in US District Court. Can my future deliberation be nullified?
G - Don't we already do this with our debates from others? Why don't they forgive the US debt sometime?
I - No hate crime debates, I can see this topic going bad and toxic. No Thank you.
A - Remove the last prep phrase and I could/would reconsider this one, but not as is.
That's my 2 cents.
Jennifer
Post a Comment