Live from the NFL: Glickstein vs. Lin

Dear readers, I report to you live from the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, just outside the Mormon Tabernacle, where the final round of Lincoln-Douglas Debate took place. In it, Jed Glickstein of Edina High School in Minnesota affirmed while Chris Lin of Bellarmine College Prep School in California negated. The round was ajudicated by an eleven-judge panel; the names of the individuals on the panel can be found below. Congratulations to the two VBI alumni for making it to finals!

Prior to finals, the audience was treated to a few words of wisdom from the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After that, the round got started.

You can read a rough summary of the round and the thoughts of the VBD “Shadow Panel” here. (Remember, these are the thoughts of three observers, not the eleven judges. Good luck to both debaters, and congratulations on a job well done!)

The Judging Panel

Nancy Zeller of the Lincoln Financial Group
Christie Parkinrand of the Lincoln Financial Group
Leslie Monnett, Johnson High School (UT)
Michael Nailor, Danville High School (PA)
Rose Joyce-Turner, Monticello High School (NY)
Fred Robertson, Fremont High School (NE)
Tim Averill, Manchester-Essex Regional High School (MA)
Fr. Raymond Hahn, Cathedral Prep School (PA)
Kandi King, Churchill High School (TX)
Michele Coody, St. James High School (AL)
Greg Malis, Glenbrook North High School (IL)

A Summary of the Final Round

Prior to debating, Jed thanked the National Forensic League - as well as the tournament’s sponsors, the Lincoln Financial Group and Schwan’s - for hosting the tournament. He singled out debate influences Mazin Sbaiti and Victor Jih, his coaches Anne Weigand, Jess Bailey and Mike Bietz, and his teammates, Nick Green and John McNeil for special recognition.

Jed opened with a quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr. that originated in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” He turned to Michael Walzer for his definition of civil disobedience: a non-revolutionary, non-violent encounter with the state. Morally bound to the state, disobedients willingly accept punishment. Jed advanced a value of morality and a value criterion of individual conscience. He carded John Rawls, who contends that people seek advice from others, but are ultimately always accountable for their deed.

His first contention was that what is legal is not what it is moral. He gave the example of Buck v. Bell, in which the state attempted to forcibly sterilize a mentally handicapped woman, and the Supreme Court ruled that such an action was legal, because “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Doctors were legally bound to perform the operation, but, Jed argued, they should not have done it, because it was immoral. He provided a card from John Rawls, in which it is argued that law is not the ultimate moral arbiter, and that equating legality with morality is wrong.

His second contention was that civil disobedience serves as a reciprocal check against society. First, he argued that citizens cannot use the law to shirk own moral responsibility. Secondly, he argued that the law cannot be used to force citizens to suffer under oppression. He carded Jonathan Wolf, who argues that treating conscientious objection as treason is “surely a mistake.” A dissenting citizen should not be silenced for sake of peace; even if the majority is right, minority voice has a place. He cited several acts of civil disobedience – such as acts employed by the IWW and the women’s suffrage movement - as positive examples of its use. He also argued that checks exist to make sure acts of civil disobedience do not cause damage, such as when the national guard was called in during George Wallace’s attempts to block black students from entering a recently desegregated school. (Even if one doesn’t agree with the message, one has a right to express it, Jed argued.) Finally, he contended that civilly disobedient acts do not reject majoritarian system, but rather those who committed acts accept punishment.

Much of Chris’s cross-examination was spent discussing civil disobedience and the constraints - if any - that existed upon it. In cross-ex, Jed made a distinction between the state being unjust for having law and the state being unjust for enforcing laws in general, or even that law specifically. He claimed that civil disobedience attacked the laws, not the enforcement of such laws, which is why people who commit such acts submit to punishment. Chris also brought up the many legal avenues through which immoral acts can be changed; Jed argued that civil disobedience was simply another legitimate method of changing law in a democracy. “The fact that I can walk or drive to the store,” Jed claimed, “doesn’t mean I’m a terrible person because I choose to drive.”

Prior to starting his constructive, Chris thanked the National Forensic League for hosting the competition, and went on to thank his parents, his sisters, his teammates, his coaches, “the Andys” (a reliable source tells me these Andys are Andi Barsan, Andy O’Connell, and Andy Swan), and God for helping him get to the final round.

In beginning his constructive, Chris asked “Why should one person have more power than everyone else?” He argued that they shouldn’t, and that they don’t, and because of that, he advanced a value of justice. He defined justice in a democracy as giving each citizen his or her due. He provided analysis from Henry Mayo, who argues that democracy is unique in recognizing political expression of conflicting views as legitimate. The card gave arguments for the benefits of compromise: all opinions are weighed, rather than one person’s interests dominating the rest. Accordingly, his value criterion was that of fair consideration of interests. He gave analysis from Peter Singer - regarding a paradigm of fair consideration - to back up this argument.

His sole contention was that affirming denies fair consideration of interests by asserting power of one person over society and legitimizing coercion. He gave a card from Dan Murphy, who, in his analysis, argued that ultimately, if civil disobedience is accepted, “every man can be his own judge, jury, and legislator.” This followed with additional analysis from Singer, in which Chris contended that due to the impossibility of reaching perfect consensus, it is better to use compromise. If everyone acts on their own judgment, Chris argued, there will be no peace. He noted that there are legal avenues for social change. He also noted that acts of civil disobedience were often not constructive; racists, for example, could use civil disobedience to violate the Equal Protection Act by throwing out black people in their own restaurants and businesses. He ended his constructive with a card from Whittiker, and argued that civilly disobedient individuals cause the erosion and destruction of the only structure that protect their rights in the first place.

Turning to the affirmative case, Chris argued that the context of the resolution was a democracy, which, by its nature, consists of many people. Multiple people have equal rights, Chris argued, and, with further analysis, he argued that one’s personal actions and obligations must consider others as well as considering oneself. He argued, then, for the prioritization of justice, for under his definition, each is given his or her fair due.

In response to Jed’s Buck v. Bell example and Rawls analysis, Chris argued that law could just as well be protecting rights rather than violating them, and that allowing each person to commit acts based upon his or her own conception of morality is dangerous: “people can be wackos.” He argued that one cannot change laws however one wants. One must work within democracy. He also argued that the judges look at the act itself, not the motivation behind the act.

Finally, responding to Jed’s argument about the non-rejection of the majoritarian system, Chris argued that murderers may accept punishments, but that doesn’t mean the act they committed is necessarily morally justified.

Jed used his cross-examination period to establish what he needed to do to meet Chris’s standard of fair consideration of interests. Since the questions and answers - marked by some humorous banter - were delivered at a rather slow pace, it was easy to create a virtual transcript of a few key points in the exchange.

JG: First, in order for an action to be fair, it can’t be violent, right?

CL: Yes.

JG: Second, it’s universal - everyone can do it?

CL: Yes, sure.

JG: Third, it has to respect others?

CL: Yes.

JG: So if I show you an action is nonviolent, and respects the opinions of others, and everyone can do it, I win, right?

CL: No.

[audience laughs]

Chris went on to explain that one needs to respect the authority of the state as well as the interests of individual people. (Jed responded, “So respect for other people? Fabulous.”) Jed then asked Chris if one would say that voting was a terrible thing just because one can vote for the KKK.

Jed began his rebuttal by focusing primarily on the four burdens to which Chris agreed Jed had to meet in order to win the standard in cross-ex. First, Jed argued that civil disobedience is not violent (his definition precluded that in the first place, he notes). Secondly, he notes that some people might use civil disobedience in ways we don’t like; he granted that, but he argued that the tolerance of such positions showed that anyone could engage in civil disobedience, and that reciprocal checks exist to block against abuse. Therefore, he argued, civil disobedience is universalized. He argued that civil disobedience takes place while still recognizing legitimate authority of the state, given that those who commit it accept punishment. Finally, he argued that the authority of the majority is respected, those who commit civil disobedience still use democratic processes; for example, those who commit the acts still go through courts, try to change laws, and so on.

In response to the Murphy card, Jed again argues that civil disobedience is but one part of an integral mechanism. Those who engage in it do not say they are above the majority doesn’t say it’s above the majority; rather, they seek to secure a voice for themselves and for their cause. In responding to Chris’s Singer analysis, Jed argued that the fact that “if everyone would do something, it would be bad” is not a reason to reject to an action; if everyone filed a lawsuit, for example, it would be bad, but we wouldn’t say that because of this possibility, the act of filing lawsuits itself is bad. (This drew some laughs from the audience.)

Though he did not use the term, in reapplying his Rawls analysis, Jed extended the original argument that law is not a final moral authority. He also argued that it is always a good thing to be faithful to one’s own moral compass, and that it’s a good thing regardless of the motive, and that checks exist to prevent abuse.

Chris began his rebuttal by responding to the four burdens which Jed argued he met. First, Chris argued Jed’s case position says to “do whatever your conscience tells you,” but then, Chris argued, Jed said we disagree on what moral obligations are. That is why use of consensus is superior, Chris argued, because in a democracy, everyone votes on what the ground basis is how to treat other people.

He addresses Jed’s arguments about existing checks that prevent abuse, and argued again that just because you accept punishment for your act, it doesn’t make it morally justified, touching upon his earlier point - unaddressed by Jed - about murderers accepting punishment. Chris also extends the analysis about the Equal Protection Act that he gives in the NC.

Finallly, Chris argued that moral obligations are defined by law, and take precedence over doing what one thinks is right, because all people have input into the laws of a state and into defining society’s moral obligations. He gives multiple voters down the flow. In touching upon his example of racist business owners, he extends his analysis and argues that civil disobedience does not necessarily solve problems at all. Chris argued that if everyone has an equal right to express equal moral conscience, there can never be an active moral principle.

In the 2AR, Jed grouped Chris’s voters and addresses their general themes. First, he addressed the issue of obligations towards others: he notes that Chris says you can’t do whatever you want because of your obligations to others. He granted him this, and argued again that this is why civil disobedience is not violent.

He then argues that the law exists to punish people who violate it. Jed claimed that he is not saying one can do whatever one wants, but rather that if one commits civil disobedience and does not incite violence, and one chooses to accept the punishment, one has the right to do that. Jed argued that civil disobedience is not the same action as imposition of beliefs on someone else. Instead, Jed argued, civil disobedience is universally justified no matter what one’s belief is. Jed claims an affirmation allows for the use this process to engage in dialogue. He said we use democracy when we use civil disobedience: violations of law lead to court cases, which lead to changes of law. He then extended the Rawls card that argues that in a democracy, the sovereign is not the final moral authority: there is no moral obligation to obey the law, because there is no fundamental moral quality to the law.

POST-ROUND COMMENTARY

Andy O’Connell

I would affirm. Jed and Chris agreed on 4 burdens for the affirmative in CX. For Jed to win, they agreed, he must show that civil disobedience is (1) non-violent, (2) universally allowed, (3) respectful of the legal authority of the state, and (4) consistent with the democratic processes of government.

The concession on the definition of civil disobedience is effectively used to meet the first burden. Jed defined civil disobedience as “non-revolutionary action undertaken to show the injustice of a particular law, while accepting the legal consequences and punishment associated with violating the law” (paraphrasing). In the 1AR Jed points out that violent disobedience does not meet this definition because it would be revolutionary, as the state has the monopoly on violence.

Chris’ point about universal applicability is that society would collapse if everyone simultaneously civilly disobeys. Jed agreed that if everyone did it simultaneously then there would be a problem. Jed said, however, that the right to disobey is universal, even though it would be undesirable for everyone to use it at the same time. He uses the analogy of assembly. He argues that if everyone assembled in the streets to protest, then the functioning society would grind to a halt, but that the right to do so is still universal.

The third and fourth burdens are essentially part of the definition of civil disobedience. Jed points out that the authority of the state is respected because those disobeying necessarily willingly accept punishment. He also shows that the democratic process is respected because the goal is to show society that the law is unjust through the legal system.

Overall, the round was solid. Both debaters did an excellent job, and both are fit to be the NFL National Champ.

On a side note, I just realized that regardless of what happens with this decision Victory Briefs Institute has won a sort of debate Triple Crown in LD. The TOC Champ (Tournament of Champions) John McNeil, the CFL (Catholic Forensics League) Champ Tara Tedrow, and the NFL (National Forensics League) Champ (whether Chris or Jed) all attended VBI. With that in mind, I am amazed that we still have room for new applicants. See you this summer!

Daryl Pinto

I think from a strategic perspective there are some fundamental errors committed in the NC. First, Jed’s definition of civil disobedience is absurd, it might as well say, “civil disobedience is friendly, always constructive and a vital aspect to a democratic society.”(though specifically, he defined civil disobedience based off a Michael Walzer card). Chris doesn’t respond to the definition in the NC which functionally makes Jed’s case true (seeing as the whole case is based on his specific definition of civil disobedience.) At that point, Jed’s standard of individual conscience becomes fairly benevolent, as Chris’ arguments about differing conceptions of morality are based on the premise that these differing conceptions of morality will lead to violence and work towards eroding different parts of society (which, when conceded, using the definition Jed is easily able to get out of those arguments). So, I think from a definitional perspective Jed is able to win a lot of offense of his case because the definition is conceded. Specifically the argument that law is not the ultimate moral arbiter, which means that individual’s have a moral responsibility to act out against laws in times when they go against their moral compass(and due to the definition we’re lead to believe that these individuals will act benevolently).

The final important issue that Jed won in the round was based off the negative standard presented by Chris. Which was “fair consideration of interest’s,” in CX Jed sets up four “planks” that he has to win, to win the negative standard. These planks are: 1) Civil disobedience is non violent, 2) Civil disobedience is universalized, 3) Civil disobedience still respects the authority of the state, 4) Civil disobedience still utilizes the democratic processes. Jed cross-applies the definition to answer the first plank(saying that by definition CD is non-violent). Jed answers the second plank by saying that a) all people have the ability to act disobediently based off their conscience and b) that people who don’t act disobediently have the ability to check those that do through the legal system(for example; calling the police, filing a lawsuit). Jed answers the third plank by arguing that disobedient’s act knowing that they will face the reprecussions of the state, but still choose to act which means that they are still respecting the state because they know they will face punishment. Finally, Jed answers the fourth plank by arguing that he still can go through democratic processes to try to solve problems, it’s once those resorts are exhausted do people actually act disobediently.

Based off that argumentation, coupled with the definition and the Rawls card extension about how law wasn’t the ultimate moral arbiter, I vote affirmative.

Jon Cruz

I affirm.

In round, both Jed and Chris run fairly straightforward cases with some good analysis and examples. Jed’s use of actual Rawlsian analysis - not simple namedropping - is excellent, and Chris’s examples, particularly violations of the Equal Protection Act by racist civil disobedients is also excellent. I want to take a moment and say that I think both debaters did an awesome job in this round and are both worthy of the national title.

Back to my narrative. Jed neutralizes any of Chris’s arguments about violence arising from condoning a variety of individual opinions about morality when Chris fails to respond to his definition. I found this lack of response surprising; while I don’t think the definition is abusive, I do think it allows the affirmative to win a lot of ground, and therefore it needs to be responded to immediately.

Jed’s use of his cross-ex was masterful, and allowed him to set up the necessary responses to win the round. He asked Chris what he needed to do to win the standard of fair consideration of interests, which was Chris’s criterion. They agreed upon four burdens (or “planks,” as Jed called them): civil disobedience had to be nonviolent, civil disobedience had to be universal, those who commit civil disobedience had to respect the ultimate authority of the state, and finally, those who commit civil disobedience had to utilize democratic processes. Jed’s own case position guaranteed he would meet the first and second burdens, and, frankly, he is able to apply arguments from his case to show that those who commit such acts accept punishment. None of these are adequately refuted by Chris. For the fourth burden, Jed argues that civil disobedience is simply one tool available to those who seek to enact change. After all, he argues, those who accept punishment are brought to court and use the court as another avenue of change. People still make use of democratic processes, and since court cases are a way to change laws, and since acts of civil disobedience can help start court cases, civil disobedience is a legitimate part of democracy.

Chris has a solid argument left at this point: he contends that accepting punishment does not necessarily equate with morality. However, he doesn’t apply this argument in a way that takes out Jed’s response to the third burden, or in a way that outweighs the affirmative analysis. When the extension of Rawls in the 1AR - the extension that argues that legal law cannot be treated as equivalent to some sort of moral law - goes unresponded, Chris is unable to counter Jed’s overall analysis. Jed wins the standard by meeting the four burdens, neutralizes the negative advocacy by showing how civil disobedience is more than the assertion of power by one individual or group of individuals over society, and instead a necessary part of a democracy and the democratic process. He thus demonstrates that civil disobedience is compatible with a democracy. In meeting the four burdens agreed upon by the two debaters in cross-examination, Jed wins.

Popularity: 1%

test

This entry was posted on Friday, June 18th, 2004 at 2:59 pm and is filed under Nationals 2004. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.