Comments on: NFL Releases 2008 Nationals Resolutions

By: Chad Henson

Chad Henson — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:50:01 +0000

NFL
The SEP/OCT 2001 topic was “Resolved: Decentralization of governmental power ought to be a fundamental goal of democratic society.” If this topic is similar to that one, I expect debaters to have difficulty debating the resolution because the objects of evaluation are processes rather than goals. Also, the lack of an evaluative agent (someone *to whom* X is a more important social goal) could create problems for traditional debate because debaters will interpret this question differently, making opposing cases much like two ships passing in the night. If the debaters can overcome these two difficulties, the great literature on this topic could help produce great debate - especially given some of the limitations on argumentation inherent in an NFL Nats judging pool.

PFD
I’m wondering if it’s viable to contextually affirm in PFD. I could see a specific agricultural policy AFF. I could also see an AFF pointing out that in hindsight, there was a 100% risk of a terrorist attack prior to 9/11, so any act that reduces risk (regardless of those that increase it) means the risk is lower.

By: Joanna

Joanna — Mon, 05 May 2008 04:24:39 +0000

well, it could’ve been worse. :P this topic’s not too bad… (for LD anyways) anyways, five days in Vegas will be worth it all.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:07:20 +0000

lol yes

By: Matt Ross

Matt Ross — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:54:43 +0000

wasnt this just an unused mar/apr rez?

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:11:22 +0000

Oh, these topics seem very interesting. Kinda wish I were judging! Good luck all!

By: ___

___ — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:57:50 +0000

Can US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan be considered a “policy”? It would seem so, it’s foreign policy, is legislation, and seems to operate under most definitions of what a policy is. But I don’t think that’s what the wording committee intended, and it seems to unfairly shift the ground to Con.

By: michael mangus

michael mangus — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:58:14 +0000

because someone forgot to close a tag

By: Pwneill

Pwneill — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:27:02 +0000

any reason why all comments are italicized?

By: Pwneill

Pwneill — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:26:09 +0000

I will say, this is a great topic for a tournament that has reps from every region of the country, and hence, vastly different debating and judging styles; and a great topic at the tournament that basically serves as our advertisement as an activity. Everyone will be able to understand it, and it has ground for everything but CPs/alts (I mean, the neg can defend the converse of the resolution, but that’s about it).

By: boji

boji — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:20:49 +0000

I think it is a good pf topic. It will be a good public debate when we hold it in our prep work that may get a pretty good sized audience. There area lot of assertions on both sides, but the actual evidence is difficult.

I think we can debate with weighing mechanisms and without which will make a lot of people happy. It asks a specific question: are we safer now than we were before 9/11 because of actions taken. It breaks down into what actions were taken and did they make the US safer? Pretty easy to organize and then research.

Plus, there are some really nice squirrely arguments teams can run.

Good job selection committee.