Public Forum Debate December Topic Analysis
The overview, analysis, strategy and sample argumention for the December resolution are provided in this edition of the Public Forum Briefs.
2005 December Public Forum Topic:
Resolved: That the National Basketball Association (NBA) should rescind its dress code.
By Terry Hatch
George Washington University
National Debate Champion
TT/Public Forum 2003
Before I start this topic analysis and brief I want to say a few words. Victory Briefs has already had a thread on the website where people have voiced their opinion on this month’s topic. I have yet to voice my opinion, at least publicly; I am going to take a few minutes to do so now.
I honestly am upset about the NFL choosing this topic. It is bothersome to me for numerous reasons. First, Public Forum is a relatively new event, one that is trying to establish its legitimacy among Policy and LD. The topics that are debated in Policy and LD revolve around big questions that don’t have easy answers. The implications of adopting the affirmative or negative can result (hypothetically) in the stifling of free speech, more activist courts, fewer civil rights, and/or nuclear war from a downturn in the US economy (as the Mead in ‘95 card so famously puts it).
The resolution that you as student and that I am going to spend numerous hours researching and writing about involves a very simple question that, outside of the sports community, has very little, if any significance educationally or politically. Upon the announcement of the topic, I had a flashback to the Bush State of the Union that discussed steroids in Baseball… The NFL, with the selection of this topic, just demonstrated the same lack of due diligence that the speech writers did in that State of the Union.
The fact is that there are real issues that need to be discussed in an open forum, issues that affect the lives of US citizens as well as citizens around the world. During the month of October, leading up to the release of this topic the following issues were discussed:
a.) the nomination of a new Federal Reserve Chairman;
b.) vacant seats on the US Supreme Court;
c.) an Iraqi election;
d.) death of Rosa Parks (read: civil rights topic);
e.) the avian bird flu pandemic;
f.) the possibility of a lame duck presidency; these among hundreds of other things.
I think that among these HUGE issues the NFL could have found one (I’m sorry, picked one) that would be a bit more educational than NBA uniforms. The reason this bothers me so much is that students put a lot of work into debate topics in order to become well rounded on the subject matter. Picking a topic that has no impact on anything is obnoxious and insulting to the students doing the research. In addition to being insulting to the students I think that it is insulting to the judges as well as the coaches who are going to have to tolerate a mindless, meaningless month of non-unique and repetitive debates.
Typically I try to prevent myself from being too critical of the topics chosen by the NFL, this time though I don’t feel bad at all. I honestly can not tell you how many people have e-mailed me about this topic, not because they have questions about it but because they are insulted that this topic would be chosen. This is the SECOND topic this season to deal with sports and I can tell you this one is just as bad as the first one. I didn’t say anything about the Division I athletes because it is understandable to have a bad topic once in a while, or for the debate topics to be switched up once in a while, but this second topic in just a few months is entirely unacceptable.
Here is the point. None of this was written to be offensive to the selectors of the topic, but I am sure that it is (although I am non-apologetic for that). The NFL was established to promote interscholastic debate in an open forum. Debate is about a market place of ideas, where thoughts are exchanged openly, respectfully, in a safe and educational atmosphere. The selection of this topic is destructive to any educational value that the NFL could hope to promote through debate. It is a sign of laziness on their behalf and it undermines the motivation and dedication that students have for debate. The NFL established Public Forum debate as a way to bring debate back, to make it more accessible to the public (hence the name) but in their selection of topics they are only serving to delegitimize it as an event that is deserving of respect and value.
I, like many of the people who participate in debate in any number of capacities (judges, coaches, parents, student, participants), take debate very seriously. It has played such an important role in so many peoples lives including my own. It is bothersome to me that so many people around the country are going to be wasting their time on a topic such as this when there are so many more pressing issues upon us. That being said, I urge students, coaches, judges, and any one else concerned with the educational importance that topic selection has on active participants of the debate community, to write to the NFL and encourage them to select topics that provide students with an opportunity to learn about and understand issues that are of substance and worth.
Overview:
2005 December Public Forum Topic
Resolved: That the National Basketball Association (NBA) should rescind its dress code.
By Terry Hatch
George Washington University
National Debate Champion
TT/Public Forum 2003
This topic is not overly complicated; I am not going to pretend that it is. Usually my briefs are quite long and they have quite a bit of evidence on both sides. I will do my best to ensure that there are a variety of arguments and that there is a sufficient amount of material for you to reference, but being a sports topic that has no in between on what can be done (you either rescind or you leave it as is), the things that can be done are really quite limited.
The one complexity that I do believe could be at issue is something called Critical Race Theory (CTR). CTR from my research thus far is the most intricate of arguments that I see being made on this topic. Typically I would put it past teams to make arguments such as these, especially because Public Forum topics allow for more straight forward argumentation. This topic though leaves teams with little choice on variation, so I am going to encourage teams to use arguments such as CTR. (Maybe it will teach the NFL a lesson when coaches and judges get upset for the introduction of theories that are typically limited to policy and LD).
I will go into CTR on each side when I get to the briefs.
As for other arguments, it would be a good idea to find out what other Professional Sports Leagues regulations are for dress codes. If there are going to be arguments made about the impacts looking to other leagues will allow you to actually see what impact(s) if any there is (are).
For the affirmative you will be able to use a lot of critical race theory arguments to support your position. I also think that you have some room to argue for free speech/freedom of expression, especially when it come to the wearing of jewelry. Another thing that I will make mention of is whether they are contractually obligated to wear/follow this new dress code.
The negative is going to be able to paint the NBA players as a bunch of over-privileged, little brats. Most of the comments coming from the players aren’t comments about race, they are comments about money. Honestly, if that is the concern, I do not know how there is legitimately going to be a race debate at all.
I know this is a terribly short overview to the topic. I will try to make the briefs as long as possible. This is going to be just as hard for me as it is for you when it comes to writing your cases.
-Terry
Background:
The following is the official NBA Player Dress Code. Once you read it, you will think that your high school debate attire is more stringent than what multi-million dollars are required to wear. Just something to think about.
NBA Player Dress Code
1. General Policy: Business Casual
Players are required to wear Business Casual attire whenever they are engaged in team or league business.
“Business Casual” attire means
A long or short-sleeved dress shirt (collared or turtleneck), and/or a sweater.
Dress slacks, khaki pants, or dress jeans.
Appropriate shoes and socks, including dress shoes, dress boots, or other presentable shoes, but not including sneakers, sandals, flip-flops, or work boots.
2. Exceptions to Business Casual
There are the following exceptions to the general policy of Business Casual attire:
a. Players In Attendance At Games But Not In Uniform
Players who are in attendance at games but not in uniform are required to wear the following additional items when seated on the bench or in the stands during the game:
Sport Coat
Dress shoes or boots, and socks
b. Players Leaving the Arena
Players leaving the arena may wear either Business Casual attire or neat warm-up suits issued by their teams.
c. Special Events or Appearances
Teams can make exceptions to the Business Casual policy for special events or player appearances where other attire is appropriate — e.g., participation in a basketball clinic.
3. Excluded Items
The following is a list of items that players are not allowed to wear at any time while on team or league business:
Sleeveless shirts
Shorts
T-shirts, jerseys, or sports apparel (unless appropriate for the event (e.g., a basketball clinic), team-identified, and approved by the team)
Headgear of any kind while a player is sitting on the bench or in the stands at a game, during media interviews, or during a team or league event or appearance (unless appropriate for the event or appearance, team-identified, and approved by the team)
Chains, pendants, or medallions worn over the player’s clothes
Sunglasses while indoors
Headphones (other than on the team bus or plane, or in the team locker room)
(http://www.nba.com/news/player_dress_code_051017.html)
I suggest that all of you read blogs, op-eds, and other articles on the dress codes and its implication for sports, race, and society.
There are some pretty heated debates going on within the sports community about why this should or should not occur. A lot of the arguments come down to race, as unfortunate as it is to say.
As a means of being the most prepared, I think it would be wise for you to actually read all of these things. I am not the biggest sports fan, but I am not lying when I say some of the arguments against the dress code are quite compelling.
Affirmative:
2005 December Public Forum Topic:
Resolved: That the National Basketball Association (NBA) should rescind its dress code.
By Terry Hatch
George Washington University
National Debate Champion
TT/Public Forum 2003
Although this topic isn’t overly difficult, I do think that the affirmative is going to have a more difficult time winning rounds. The reason isn’t because the arguments are weaker, but it is because of perceptual issues.
The perception is that NBA players are babies who are crying over the fact that they have to wear dress jeans or khakis with a button down shirt with a tie or sweater. The whiney factor gets even worse when you have multi-millionaire players complaining over the cost of a suit, or khakis for that matter, especially when they are driving around $90K cars and live in $2+ million dollar houses and are getting a salary of $45 million over 5 years.
You have to stop that line of argumentation because that is what the debate will be about. You will be defending players being justly upset over a dress code because they have to by dress clothes.
The debate needs to be framed a different way. First, you can make the argument that there are provisions within the dress code that have questionable intentions. They DEFINITELY target a specific group of people, you can call it racism if you want, I don’t know if I personally will go that far.
Your justifications for rescinding the dress code need to revolve around real objection, where you can identify ulterior motives. In doing so you will be able to make the argument that the negative only wants to focus on the money aspect of it because they recognize that by painting the players a certain way that they will be able to gain more ground.
The frame of the debate needs to be as follows: The reality of the situation is that although a dress code may not be bad, THIS dress code is. List WHY it is bad, where it shows discriminatory clauses, ect. In turning the tables on the debate you are able to capture the negative arguments that all of the players are babies and are then able to argue that it should be rescinded until it is fixed.
If you find that strategy too complicated or you rather not split hairs you can go a couple of other ways.
The first is that you can argue that there has never been a dress code in the past and that there has been very little if any damage that is identifiable. The decision to have a dress code was arbitrary and has only caused more problems, as opposed to not having one at all.
Second, you can make an argument that it could be seen as a contractual violation with the players. Seeing that a lot of the contracts these players have are private, I think the argument could be that these players didn’t join with the intent that they would have to follow guidelines that weren’t established in the first place.
Third, I think you can make the argument that each team should have a dress code that fits them the best. The fact is that the dress code for a team in Florida ought to differ from a team who is from New England. Climate differences do matter. Why should teams be forced into wearing suits, when it is non-conducive to ANYTHING but looking a particular way?
Giving teams’ autonomy allows for appropriate accommodations when it comes to the diversity of a particular team. The fact is that a lot of teams have their own rules, some of which are stricter than the NBA’s rule but they work because they fit that team and their particular needs.
Individuality is also something that is violated with the imposition of a dress code. If you really want to take this argument to the furthest degree, compare NBA uniforms to uniforms in school. They strip people of their individuality and their right to free expression. Moreover, I think that the implications of forcing NBA players to follow a dress code are almost worse than forcing students. Students have dress codes in order to cut down on violence, to make the classroom more conducive to learning, and to cut down on class inequalities that can create tension between students. What purpose do uniforms in the NBA serve? They make people prettier? Get real…
The last argument that I am going to discuss is Critical Race Theory. The argument is as follows:
Critical Race Theory is the school of thought that holds that race lies at the very nexus of American life. It is an academic discipline that challenges its readers, whether proponents or dissenters, to consider the relationship that exists between race, the justice system, and society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory)
The argument that you can make on this argument is that certain provisions of the dress code are racially motivated based on certain societal associations that people have with particular races.
The provision that I see that is most troubling is the dress is the ban on bling.
If you are going to make this argument MAKE SURE that you read up on all of the literature. This is not a simple argument it is n relatively new founded philosophical/legal outlook.
If you have any questions or need any help, let me know.
terry@victorybriefs.com
thatch@gwu.edu
Negative:
By Terry Hatch
George Washington University
National Debate Champion
TT/Public Forum 2003
My roommate at GW and I were talking about this subject right after it happened. Soon after our discussion I was checking out his blog and this is what I came across:
“SI.com reports that the NBA will be enforcing a new business-casual dress code for players during team and league events.
Players are objecting over a rule prohibiting some jewelry, claiming the rule is implicitly racist. But that isn’t why I’m posting here. I’m posting because this quote from Allen Iverson is just hilarious:
I feel like if they want us to dress a certain way, they should pay for our clothes. It’s just tough, man, knowing that all of a sudden you have to have a dress code out of nowhere.
Really, Allen? You’re under a four-year contract worth more than $75 million. Are you telling me you can’t pick up a few of those Sears $99 polyester specials? I’m not sure what your last Reebok deal netted you, but I’m sure it was enough to grab some Florsheims and a couple ties, too.
Get any real job in this country and you will be subject to a dress code. The chains, track suits, and wife beaters will not cut it at the office. So suck it up and put on a blazer. There’s plenty of time to look like crap while you’re on the court.”
The animosity that NBA players have toward the dress code is short sighted. They are professionals and are representing businesses. They should be required to abide by some form of regulation when it comes to dressing up.
The thing is that the dress code allows for them to wear jeans. Honestly, the dress code at McDonalds is stricter than that. Have you ever noticed that all Starbucks employees where slacks/khakis and a polo? If they were to put on a sweater they would be dressed well enough to fit into the new NBA requirements for dressing up.
The thing that the negative needs to do is make sure that this isn’t painted as a race issue. Once it is, once you give them validity on that one issue, the round becomes that much harder to win.
Sports have served to break barriers that constrained race relations in this country. If you want to find a place where racial diversity isn’t an issue, look to sports. Good race relations are personified in sports. There was integration in sports long before there was integration in education. The only place that beats sports in racial integration is in the military.
I don’t see it happening unless every NBA player is given a stipend to buy clothes. -Marcus Camby, Denver Nuggets (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 10/19/05) Comments like this are the arguments that basketball players are making, it is not racism arguments. The way that you need to refute these type of arguments is to find out what their contracts are worth… It’s not hard to do so either. Find all the basketball players who have made comments such as these and then put it on a grid next to their contract and yearly earnings… For example, Marcus Camby has made 8.5 million dollars this year alone. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cambyma01.html)
I do realize that simply saying racism doesn’t exist isn’t going to win you around. Here are a couple of answers that you can make to Critical Race Theory:
1.) CRT presupposes that the racism that is inherent in society is irreversible. If that is so, having uniforms or not having uniforms, racism is going to stay the same, meaning the affirmative advocacy is BS.
2.) CRT also posits that people who are at the bottom of the socio-economic latter are those who are best able to understand the effects of capitalism. That being said, they are also the ones that benefits from capitalism the least. The problem with this is that basketball players are by no means from the bottom of the social latter, in fact they are among the top 2% of income earners in the United States with contracts in the tens of millions of dollars.
3.) They also believe in equality of law. If this is true, find a sport that is predominately white, that has a dress code, and then justify the dress code on the basis that equality ought to prevail.
4.) Often times people will argue that the equality argument only serves to recreate a form of legal racism. The best thing to do is argue that they are in a double bind. Either they can argue no laws are good or that laws are inherently racist despite their intention. The problem they will run into is that some laws have stifled racism and stopped it from becoming more systemic meaning that many laws are a necessary remedy and that some of those laws will be better than others.
While some of those arguments are offensive, you as the negative are going to need a lot more offensive arguments than are contained within those arguments.
The first thing that you can argue offensively is the affirmative causes more racism by making race the issue, when really race isn’t the issue at all, it is individualism and money. If everything issue is made a racial issue, then all tensions will be racial ones.
Second, you should argue professional standards dictate that some form of dress code is necessary because without it, the doors are opened to any number of things including Dennis Rodman in a wedding dress.
Third, much of the justification for the uniforms is to convey an image that would be more beneficial to the people who idolize the athletes, namely, teenagers. The basketball players by the position they hold have a responsibility to maintain a good reputation. Part of that reputation is dressing the part. On the court it is absolutely acceptable to wear a uniform, but even in high school and college, basketball players are required to have business casual attire prior to the game. It would seem that in pro ball it wouldn’t even be a question.
That being said, it is demonstrated in all professionals that the more formal the dress the more civil and respectful people tend to be. Be careful when you make this argument, some people are going to try to turn this around and make the argument that you are calling basketball players (who are predominately black) uncivil. This OBVIOUSLY is not the argument, but the way people take it is all that matters.
The negative really shouldn’t have that difficult of a time winning rounds. This topic really is going to come down to your approach. There isn’t anything really threatening about having uniforms, except maybe that it cuts down on free expression and individuality (as if absolutely similar uniforms on the court don’t).
You really have two choices, to argue that uniforms are good thus negating the resolution or you can negate the affirmative and their justification for getting rid of the uniforms. Either way the arguments will be very similar.
Good luck!!!
A Few Final Thoughts:
I recognize there are not a tremendous number of arguments in here. That being said, e-mail me if you want to run any ideas past me. I will be willing to give you my thoughts or answer any questions you may have. It is the least I can do to help you with a topic that is difficult to fathom debating for a month… Just think, Christmas Break is coming up, which means at least one or two weekends that you DON’T have to debate this topic.
E-mail questions/comments to: Terry Hatch.
Popularity: 2%
test
20 Responses to “Public Forum Debate December Topic Analysis”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Andy Werner Wins the Blake Edie Holiday Tournament
- 2005 in Review: Themes
- Alta (Temporarily) Concludes After Quarters
- BREAKING NEWS: Eminent Domain
- North Dakota Bans Public Forum Resolution
- MBA Extemp Round Robin Announced
- Public Forum Debate December Topic Analysis
- Caitlin Halpern Wins the Princeton Classic
- Topic for Debate: Stanley Tookie Williams
- Patrick Mahoney Wins the UT Longhorn Classic
Posted from: 130.253.118.21
December 3rd, 2005 19:18
I’ve said it before and I say it again– with these overviews, Terry is providing the community a generous and productive service.
Posted from: 209.94.139.52
December 3rd, 2005 20:58
damn i totally agree, i mean when u can make a state qual with a case written in 10 minutes on this topic, it shows the absurdity of the topic choices in this debate >.<
Posted from: 68.224.110.33
December 3rd, 2005 22:52
Hey, thanks for the overview..
There are a few things that helped my partner and me win round this weekend that might be helpful to other people reading up on the topic.
Most negatives tried to make the main issue in the round about the Corporation’s Rights to enforce a dress code. I found it effective to say, Sure they do have that right, this debate isn’t about whether or not the right exists, it’s about whether or not the dress code is a good thing.
We explained the NBA must make money by appealing to fans. The ratings dropped because of the actions of the players. Put Ron Artest in a suit, and he is still Ron Artest, that guy would started a brawl, wearing a suit. Because it was the actions that hurt the ratings, the NBA should enforce policies that change those actions. The Dress code just masks the problem.
I found that using any of the race issues made for muddy debate. I personally think it is really hard to be persuassive to a judge when you’re saying that million dollar a year athlete’s are being discriminated against because they have to wear a suit.
We pointed out the problem with the NBA’s policy of just suspending/fining those who are violent on the court. For example, Artest just had to sit out a few games, pay some money, and then got to play again. That shouldn’t be the message sent out to the public.
I really think the argument that the actions, not the dress, hurt the ratings won us most of our rounds. There are a handful of examples to support it:
-Mike Tyson was loved by the boxing community because he had that “bad boy” image. People lost respect when he bit Hollifield and was violent in the ring.
-Dennis Rodman was loved by media because people wanted to watch how outrageous he was. Then he kicked a reporter and lost public support.
That’s it for now. Just my thoughts about what helped my team this weekend.
Posted from: 68.224.110.33
December 3rd, 2005 22:54
Hey, thanks for the overview..
There are a few things that helped my partner and me win round this weekend that might be helpful to other people reading up on the topic.
Most negatives tried to make the main issue in the round about the Corporation’s Rights to enforce a dress code. I found it effective to say, Sure they do have that right, this debate isn’t about whether or not the right exists, it’s about whether or not the dress code is a good thing.
We explained the NBA must make money by appealing to fans. The ratings dropped because of the actions of the players. Put Ron Artest in a suit, and he is still Ron Artest, that guy would started a brawl, wearing a suit. Because it was the actions that hurt the ratings, the NBA should enforce policies that change those actions. The Dress code just masks the problem.
I found that using any of the race issues made for muddy debate. I personally think it is really hard to be persuassive to a judge when you’re saying that million dollar a year athlete’s are being discriminated against because they have to wear a suit.
We pointed out the problem with the NBA’s policy of just suspending/fining those who are violent on the court. For example, Artest just had to sit out a few games, pay some money, and then got to play again. That shouldn’t be the message sent out to the public.
I really think the argument that the actions, not the dress, hurt the ratings won us most of our rounds. There are a handful of examples to support it:
-Mike Tyson was loved by the boxing community because he had that “bad boy” image. People lost respect when he bit Hollifield and was violent in the ring.
-Dennis Rodman was loved by media because people wanted to watch how outrageous he was. Then he kicked a reporter and lost public support.
That’s it for now. Just my thoughts about what helped my team this weekend.
Posted from: 65.197.192.130
December 4th, 2005 17:15
Thanks so much,
i was completly lost on this topic unitl i found this site. i am kind of new at this. this really saved me. thanks so much. keep it up.
Posted from: 65.99.187.14
December 4th, 2005 17:23
I appreciate the overviews on both sides and have used information from them to help form my cases. However, I do not appreciate bringing CRT into public forum. I personally hate this topic, so at the last tournament I did policy, policy has its place and so does public forum. Blurring the line by bringing in fringe policy arguments [which unfortunately is all policy at the national level is] to a public forum debate only furthers the deterioration of PF. When I go to a tournament and compete in PF I dont expect to have to bring my policy backfiles, I expect to come prepared on current events and debate with logic. The other arguments in your case are strong, if somebody can’t win using those , then they arent going to be skilled enough to effectively argue CRT. PF’s “constructive” speeches are 4 minutes, somebody cant run the shell to CRT and those other arguments without spreading, and the day I run into an opponent spreading in PF is the day I quit debate.
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 4th, 2005 18:44
I don’t think it’s really fair to say that a Rosa Parks topic would read as a civil rights topic and not give the same allowance to the NBA topic (I understand that the two are different ideas, but hear me out). The topic this month can be applied to overarching principles like rights to expression (and, conversely, a corporations right to repress expression by employees) and even race/stereotypes. There’s plenty of ground to argued on either side of the topic. Like you say, this was meant to be a form of debate that appeals to the common person. What confuses me is you then go on to say that PFD loses legitimacy by having resolutions like this. Because it’s a different type of topic it’s not really fair to judge legitimacy off of policy and LD. They’re completely different. If this topic appeals to the common person and has ground on both sides of the resolution (check and check), then it’s entirely legitimate and within the bounds of PFD and is serving its purpose. Who cares if LD and policy think we’re legitimate? This type of debate is probably going to be more real-world useful in the end anyways. I think that the January topic is more troublesome because it potentially allows for a lot more interventions of judge’s personal opinions on the topic.
Basically what I’m saying is that the topic is relevant socially and politically (and educationally) because it can be construed as analyzing the hip hop culture and its effect on the NBA and society, as well as what is culturally acceptable (and why it’s culturally acceptable) in terms of the business world.
“It is a sign of laziness on their behalf and it undermines the motivation and dedication that students have for debate.”
That just doesn’t make sense. This topic would be no easier to choose than any other, so saying that the NFL was lazy in choosing it is inherently wrong. Saying that it undermines motivation also doesn’t really make sense. What you’re saying is that kids that do debate are not interested in sports and therefore aren’t going to care about the topic. Debate and sports are not mutually exclusive. By the same token, some topics are just outright boring. I would contend that competitors are more motivated by a desire to do well than by interest in subject matter. It kind of goes both ways.
Sorry about the long post, and I didn’t mean to offend, I just don’t understand why this topic is inherently worse than any other…
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 4th, 2005 18:48
I don’t think it’s really fair to say that a Rosa Parks topic would read as a civil rights topic and not give the same allowance to the NBA topic (I understand that the two are different ideas, but hear me out). The topic this month can be applied to overarching principles like rights to expression (and, conversely, a corporations right to repress expression by employees) and even race/stereotypes. There’s plenty of ground to argued on either side of the topic. Like you say, this was meant to be a form of debate that appeals to the common person. What confuses me is you then go on to say that PFD loses legitimacy by having resolutions like this. Because it’s a different type of topic it’s not really fair to judge legitimacy off of policy and LD. They’re completely different. If this topic appeals to the common person and has ground on both sides of the resolution (check and check), then it’s entirely legitimate and within the bounds of PFD and is serving its purpose. Who cares if LD and policy think we’re legitimate? This type of debate is probably going to be more real-world useful in the end anyways. I think that the January topic is more troublesome because it potentially allows for a lot more interventions of judge’s personal opinions on the topic.
Basically what I’m saying is that the topic is relevant socially and politically (and educationally) because it can be construed as analyzing the hip hop culture and its effect on the NBA and society, as well as what is culturally acceptable (and why it’s culturally acceptable) in terms of the business world.
“It is a sign of laziness on their behalf and it undermines the motivation and dedication that students have for debate.”
That just doesn’t make sense. This topic would be no easier to choose than any other, so saying that the NFL was lazy in choosing it is inherently wrong. Saying that it undermines motivation also doesn’t really make sense. What you’re saying is that kids that do debate are not interested in sports and therefore aren’t going to care about the topic. Debate and sports are not mutually exclusive. By the same token, some topics are just outright boring. I would contend that competitors are more motivated by a desire to do well than by interest in subject matter. It kind of goes both ways.
Sorry about the long post, and I didn’t mean to offend, I just don’t understand why this topic is inherently worse than any other…
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 4th, 2005 18:50
I don’t think it’s really fair to say that a Rosa Parks topic would read as a civil rights topic and not give the same allowance to the NBA topic (I understand that the two are different ideas, but hear me out). The topic this month can be applied to overarching principles like rights to expression (and, conversely, a corporations right to repress expression by employees) and even race/stereotypes. There’s plenty of ground to argued on either side of the topic. Like you say, this was meant to be a form of debate that appeals to the common person. What confuses me is you then go on to say that PFD loses legitimacy by having resolutions like this. Because it’s a different type of topic it’s not really fair to judge legitimacy off of policy and LD. They’re completely different. If this topic appeals to the common person and has ground on both sides of the resolution (check and check), then it’s entirely legitimate and within the bounds of PFD and is serving its purpose. Who cares if LD and policy think we’re legitimate? This type of debate is probably going to be more real-world useful in the end anyways. I think that the January topic is more troublesome because it potentially allows for a lot more interventions of judge’s personal opinions on the topic.
Basically what I’m saying is that the topic is relevant socially and politically (and educationally) because it can be construed as analyzing the hip hop culture and its effect on the NBA and society, as well as what is culturally acceptable (and why it’s culturally acceptable) in terms of the business world.
“It is a sign of laziness on their behalf and it undermines the motivation and dedication that students have for debate.”
That just doesn’t make sense. This topic would be no easier to choose than any other, so saying that the NFL was lazy in choosing it is inherently wrong. Saying that it undermines motivation also doesn’t really make sense. What you’re saying is that kids that do debate are not interested in sports and therefore aren’t going to care about the topic. Debate and sports are not mutually exclusive. By the same token, some topics are just outright boring. I would contend that competitors are more motivated by a desire to do well than by interest in subject matter. It kind of goes both ways.
Sorry about the long post, and I didn’t mean to offend, I just don’t understand why this topic is inherently worse than any other…
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 4th, 2005 18:52
I don’t think it’s really fair to say that a Rosa Parks topic would read as a civil rights topic and not give the same allowance to the NBA topic (I understand that the two are different ideas, but hear me out). The topic this month can be applied to overarching principles like rights to expression (and, conversely, a corporations right to repress expression by employees) and even race/stereotypes. There’s plenty of ground to argued on either side of the topic. Like you say, this was meant to be a form of debate that appeals to the common person. What confuses me is you then go on to say that PFD loses legitimacy by having resolutions like this. Because it’s a different type of topic it’s not really fair to judge legitimacy off of policy and LD. They’re completely different. If this topic appeals to the common person and has ground on both sides of the resolution (check and check), then it’s entirely legitimate and within the bounds of PFD and is serving its purpose. Who cares if LD and policy think we’re legitimate? This type of debate is probably going to be more real-world useful in the end anyways. I think that the January topic is more troublesome because it potentially allows for a lot more interventions of judge’s personal opinions on the topic.
Basically what I’m saying is that the topic is relevant socially and politically (and educationally) because it can be construed as analyzing the hip hop culture and its effect on the NBA and society, as well as what is culturally acceptable (and why it’s culturally acceptable) in terms of the business world.
“It is a sign of laziness on their behalf and it undermines the motivation and dedication that students have for debate.”
That just doesn’t make sense. This topic would be no easier to choose than any other, so saying that the NFL was lazy in choosing it is inherently wrong. Saying that it undermines motivation also doesn’t really make sense. What you’re saying is that kids that do debate are not interested in sports and therefore aren’t going to care about the topic. Debate and sports are not mutually exclusive. By the same token, some topics are just outright boring. I would contend that competitors are more motivated by a desire to do well than by interest in subject matter. It kind of goes both ways.
Sorry about the long post, and I didn’t mean to offend, I just don’t understand why this topic is inherently worse than any other…
Posted from: 130.253.118.21
December 4th, 2005 19:34
Andy– While I understand your concern regarding the perceptually esoteric nature of CRT and, for that matter, critical theory in general, I would suggest that: 1.) critical theory has, especially recently, become far, far more commonplace within and outside the debate community than even three years ago (thus it is hardly “fringe”) and 2.) critical theory need not be explained in a verbose, hypertechnical way to be both understandable and analytically precise.
Please feel free to send me an email and I’ll be glad to help you craft PFD-relevant critical arguments.
Posted from: 64.18.36.179
December 5th, 2005 05:09
i was wondering if anyone finds it much more difficult to argue aff than neg. at compettion this weekend this was the case for not only my team but my school and others as well. does anyone feel the same?
Posted from: 161.253.20.127
December 5th, 2005 11:56
I want to respond to a couple of things. I knew that the arguments that I presented and the preface to the topic analysis on my feeling for the topic have upset some people. That is what I expected it to do, though it was not intended to.
First on the topic of CRT. As Andrew Swan said CRT is becoming commonplace both inside and outside the debate community. For me to be criticized for bringing into this brief is entirely unfair. My job is not to make everone happy by making the politically correct arguments, my job is to give students an opportunity to see what is out there for them. My brief is a survey of arguments rather than arguments you can cut and paste and then run in rounds. CRT is merely a route of argumentation that students are able to CHOOSE, I do not force it upon them. Moreover, I even argue in my brief that the students do not have to bring in the argument of CRT that they can rather make the argument that provisions that the dress code has are racist and that can re-create racism within society and perpetuate racial stereotypes.
Ultimately though, debate is, like I said, about a marketplace of ideas, I am not going to keep a legitimate argument out of my briefs in order to please some people. Students have a right to know of the arguments that are constantly being debated in academia; CRT is one of those arguments.
As to Ms. Turner’s response to my opinion on the topic. First, those are merely my thoughts. I said I was going to share them and that they might offend some. I posted them for two reasons: a.) I had recieved numerous (100+) e-mails from people asking my questions along the line of why was this topic choosen, what was the NFL thinking, ect. b.) After participating in policy debate for 4 years, winning the National Championship in Public Forum, and writing briefs for going on 3 years for Victory Briefs, I feel as though I can call topics as I see them. This topic I see has awful at best and pointless at worst.
When I mentioned Rosa Parks, I did put into parenthasis “(read: Civil Rights).” I do not think it is analogous to have a topic on rescinding the NBA dress code to a TRUE civil rights topic such as: “Resolved: The United States should extend the protection of habeaus corpus to terrorist” or as contreversial as it may be “Resolved: The United States Federal Government should leave regluation of marriages respectively to the states.” NBA uniforms merely brings in the possiblity of an issue on civil rights, but why not really have a discussion on civil rights issues rather than diluting it? That was my point, it is hard to be well versed on an important subject when the issue is minute and on the periphery of most people. Lastly on the Rosa Parks (read: Civil Rights) example, the other 5 or 6 examples I provided were ignored. Nit-picking on a single example to discredit my opinion is unfair, that is why I listed numerous issues.
Second, to the educational, political, and social significance of the topic. As I just said if we want to discuss real issues, let discuss them. I agree hip hop culture and its effects on society can be brought out on topics such as these and yes it can be educational BUT again the REAL ISSUES, the real ROOT is ignored. Lets talk about censorship of lyrics by corporation (like Wal-Mart and their “Clean” CD’s). Let’s talk about music, things that EVERYONE is engaged in. Basketball uniforms isn’t a serious issue, what is serious is that expression is being squashed in the most important of areas: speech. The way one dresses, or is forced to dress is A LOT less important than the words that are allowed to be spoken. The thing about the spoken word is that it has powers to change minds, attitudes, and prevailing societal/political climates. Requiring someone to stop wearing track pants and a t-shirt on the other hand is a much different matter. It seems as though even considering it a real civil rights issue, considering EVERYONE: black, white, chinese, ect., are effected.
Now I want to move on to the importance of Public Forum Debates legitimacy. Opinions matter! If students go into a debate classroom and are made fun of for wanting to do an event that people see as a joke, it is going to deter their participation. It was because there was a stigma against LD at my school that I was a policy debater. If people do not take the topics of the form of debate seriously, they will not take the format, nor the debaters seriously.
Public Forum has a lot to contribute to the debate community because it is useful outside of competitive debate, but so are the other forms. Public Debate is just more relaxed, less philosophical, and more current events oriented than are Policy and LD, that being said, it has to earn its spot. LD took awhile to catch on because at the beginning there was a stigma against it. The more participation, the better the topics, the more legitimacy an event will have and the longer it will be around and be educational to those students who are participating.
The last thing I want to respond to is the issue of how this topic was just as hard for the NFL to choose as any other topic is/has been. I’m sorry, I do not agree. I will again call it pure laziness. I do not think that I would be getting the volume of e-mails that I have gotten had the topic been of merit with the previous topic or with topics in years past. This topics selection has produced more e-mails in my inbox than any other topic. That says something to me.
Victory Briefs is the ONLY website to provide a free, extensive topic analysis on EACH Public Forum topic. Everywhere else charges. Many people, and by many I mean hundreds, can attest to the fact that I respond to their e-mails when they have questions, or need additional information. Last month I sent out at least 100, if not more, copies of the full brief including the research that I had done on the topic to various schools, students, and coaches. The time and effort I put into each topic is purely because I love the event and the possibility of being an event that is around for years to come. Without people like Victor Jih, Mike Bietz, Michelin Massey, and Jon Cruz, this debate website and these briefs would not exist and I would not be able to provide the briefs that I am able to each month.
Students, educators/coaches, and active people within the debate community expressed a distain for this topic. I feel the same as them. Topics such as this undermine the great intellectual ability of the students who participate in debate. Debate should challenge the students, intrigue them, rather than detour them because they think the topic is “stupid.”
The last thing that I want to say is that the main reason that I expressed such frustration is because this topic really does stifle academic inquiry. Students being able to google blogs and newpapers for their cases is sad in my opinion. This is one of those topics that students will never discuss again, and that seems like a waste to me. The NFL really should think twice about the topics they choose because they do have an impact. They affect what thousands of people hear, research, and talk about for an entire month. It would be extremely inappropriate of me to not call the NFL on their choice of this topic. Only when people tell others when something is wrong can that wrong be fixed. I am calling the NFL on it.
-Terry
Terry Hatch
George Washington University
2003 National PF Champion
E-mail: terry@victorybriefs.com
or thatch@gwu.edu
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 5th, 2005 15:33
I still don’t understand why it was any easier for them to choose this topic than any other…why would it be easier to justify a topic that you say has fewer educational merits?
Posted from: 66.41.240.45
December 5th, 2005 19:35
Yeah, I ran that the NBA dress code is good because it prevents the expansion of DeBeers on one side, and then on the other I ran that the dress code is bad because it allows for “pimps” on the sidelins (see Latrell Sprewell’s lime-green single paned suit from last season). We proceded to get fourth at a semi-competitive local tournament. Congratulations to the teams that beat us deservingly, but seriously, my partner and I are much more focused on January because we hate this topic.
Posted from: 161.253.20.127
December 5th, 2005 19:47
Ms. Turner, I don’t think that it is a matter of it being easier or harder. It is a matter of being lazy or not, which was my initial argument and something that I echoed in my response. The choosing of this topic was laziness, I did not say it was an escape or an easy way out. At the point they choose a topic with little or no educational merit is the point at which it becomes a bad topic.
I hope that clears my position up.
-Terry
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 6th, 2005 20:03
I’m still kind of confused, but not meaning to be disrespectful or anything…I would say that easiness is inherent in laziness. Someone (or in this case a group of people) makes a decision because they are lazy, it would likely be the easiest. If they choose a topic with little educational merit, that’s one thing (and I am still not fully convinced of that), but laziness and ease of choice are quite another.
And also, you did say it wasn’t as hard, but you didn’t really go on to explain, “…this topic was just as hard for the NFL to choose as any other topic is/has been. Iβm sorry, I do not agree…”
“This topics selection has produced more e-mails in my inbox than any other topic. That says something to me.” Yeah, some people don’t like it. But I think it’s important that we move forward and understand that whether you like a topic or not there’s going to be a lot of opinions on it, and there will probably be a lot of literature on it too. And yes, that litarature will include newspapers and even (gasp!) blogs, but any topic can include that, so I don’t understand the point made there.
Finally, I’m sure you absolutely do take a lot of time to respond to emails, but I wasn’t trying to say you were a bad person or that you didn’t care about debate or anything like that. I think that you have a lot to offer the community and I appreciate your working so hard on these briefs, but I think that a lot of the problems that people have with the topic stem from the idea that it’s sports-centered (no pun intended, I swear). I like it in that the issues are diluted - you’re not forced to talk about any one thing (racism, acceptability, hip-hop, violence, etc.), rather, the debaters in round can decide which way they want it to go.
In the end, I’m not going to have a major problem with the topic, but you might, and that’s cool too.
-HT
Posted from: 65.43.196.55
December 7th, 2005 10:59
Gang, remember one of the original names for this event: Ted Turner.
Public Forum originates from shows like Crossfire, and hinges still on appealing to the lay masses. You WOULD see a topic like this on Crossfire, or Hardball, or any such current events/debate program, just as you would see a topic on funding Katrina relief/ intelligent design.
I’ll admit that I considered this topic completely retarded at first,too, but after debating it I can see its merit. This topic absolutely has the legitimacy demanded by PFD, if not the support. We already have a bad reputation with LD and Policy debaters for discussing actual pragmatic issues rather than philosophical ones, so we shouldn’t concern ourselves our derive our own legitimacy from that.
Posted from: 66.27.116.117
December 9th, 2005 20:40
Erika, I couldn’t disagree with you more. This topic is for America’s pool halls and not for her national circuit debate tournaments. Look, I know that the topic belies certain underlying issues which might be deemed substantive, although pimp suits and hip hop seem pretty frivolous to me, but for some reason I can’t help but envisaging two guys kicking back a few at a local watering whole, the game blaring, as one turns to the other and exclaims, “Look Al they’re making ‘em wear suits now,” Al retorts “Heck, for 3 mil I wouldn’t care how they dress me.” End of story, no debate necessary.
Albeit that Public Forum is in theory supposed to be more pragmatic than LD, but pragmatism, from my understanding, actually requires some thought and it is thought that is decidedly missing from this topic and it is thought that was missing from the NFL vetting committee when it was selected. They have put the legitimacy of a fledgling debate event on the line and, in doing so, done all of us a great disservice. Sure, pundits might mention something like this in comedic passing, but they would never aire an entire show predicated upon the issue. Why? Because, no one would take them seriously. And nobody is going to take us seriously when we spend a thirty-five minutes discerning between semi-formal and business attire. The only rationale I can see behind the topic is that committee in question, which I hope will do better under Tim Averill’s stewardship, incorrectly assumed that December was the debate doldrums because of the holidays and decided to proffer a disposable topic.
If, on the other hand, this topic was selected because it is consistant with PFD’s paradigm of accessability to debate laity, it’s time the committe give the American public a little more credit for having a collective IQ higher than the two oafs at the bar aforementioned.
Posted from: 65.60.181.195
December 16th, 2005 16:13
i’m glad that there are many different views on this topic. but my coach and most pf debaters seem to agree that going the race route isn’t a smart choice. i suppose that there are some statistics to support the theory, but it doesn’t make it any easier to win a round.
since pro seems to be the harder one, which pro argument do you think is the easiest to take? or should one offer alot of arguments at the same time?