NFL Releases 2008 Nationals Resolutions
posted by Bietz on April 30th, 2008
RIPON, Wis. – Although some people are certainly gearing up for the TOC this weekend, many of us have also been waiting for the release of the 2008 NFL Nationals resolution. Today, I walked down to the mailbox, and there it was…the May Rostrum. The 2008 Lincoln Financial Group NFL L/D Debate topic is:
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
UPDATE: The Public Forum resolution has also been released. It is:
Resolved: US policies established after September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the United States.
Popularity: 4%
no more tag found, sorry
21 Responses to “NFL Releases 2008 Nationals Resolutions”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Bronx Science Closes Out Second-Year Nationals; Larry Liu is Novice National Champion
- "Pre-standards" Arguments
- Field Report: TOC
- Sana Raoof Named New York State Champion
- Jared Dummitt is Northeast Champion
- Clinton Challenges Obama to...a Lincoln-Douglas Debate?
- Truth, Comparison, and Justification in LD Debate
- J.W. Patterson Releases Final Fields for the TOC
- Bilal Malik is California State Champion
- TOC Final Panel Named
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 30th, 2008 16:37
kinda a bummer, although i do love me the cap debate. i wuz hoping for TRC’s
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
April 30th, 2008 17:33
thank you nfl…
oy
Posted from: 76.238.3.195
April 30th, 2008 17:39
Seems like a very good resolution. It’s a pity I can’t debate it.
Posted from: 69.120.226.236
April 30th, 2008 18:22
SHIT FEST
Posted from: 72.33.1.249
April 30th, 2008 18:22
pf topic?
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
April 30th, 2008 18:34
agreeed with the 917
Posted from: 75.40.38.58
April 30th, 2008 19:31
VBI camp topic right?
Posted from: 75.40.38.58
April 30th, 2008 19:32
* was this resolution was VBI’s camp one last year?
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 30th, 2008 19:45
I don’t think this is a PF resolution at all. And I think it was the smart money pick for the national resolution. I look forward to hearing many interesting debaters on it!
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
April 30th, 2008 20:32
I know uncle JuJu is glad he’s not headed out to nationals with this topic. He’d go crazy with all of the cap good/cap bad argz that he knows are simpler/more complex or flat out wrong.
Posted from: 168.221.143.68
May 1st, 2008 05:18
YES
Going in Duo though
:x
Posted from: 207.28.99.97
May 1st, 2008 08:20
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.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 08:26
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).
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 08:27
any reason why all comments are italicized?
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
May 1st, 2008 10:58
because someone forgot to close a tag
Posted from: 76.29.1.202
May 1st, 2008 13:57
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.
Posted from: 216.250.178.113
May 1st, 2008 15:11
Oh, these topics seem very interesting. Kinda wish I were judging! Good luck all!
Posted from: 74.73.188.174
May 1st, 2008 18:54
wasnt this just an unused mar/apr rez?
Posted from: 208.120.129.233
May 1st, 2008 20:07
lol yes
Posted from: 155.97.238.226
May 4th, 2008 21:24
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.
Posted from: 76.187.221.251
May 5th, 2008 18:50
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.