Results are posted.

My cases were fairly straightforward, and after having debated the topic for a few rounds, the resolution wasn’t as limited as I expected. I actually found it more substantively interesting than a few other topics.

In finals, my affirmative (as Anjan said) talked about how the fine arts stimulate moral growth and development through self-reflection, increased humbleness, compassion, and a few other things. It also argued that athletics stifled moral development through steroids use, bribery, and exclusion of individuals. Finally, it explained that moral development was critical at a young age because moral values become fixed and immovable with time. The impact to moral development was increased societal progress through solving social problems.

The more interesting of my negative cases, and the one I would have run had I negated in the final round, said that valuing something implies a view of positive worth toward that object. For example, you can’t value dishonesty. Thus, the thesis of the NC was that neither the fine arts nor athletics should be valued because they both cause a tradeoff with academic focus. The case said that India and China were taking our place in the global market and our only way to catch up to them was to decrease athletics/fine arts and focus more on academics. This is true because schools in India/China and almost every other developed nation spend 2x the time we do on academics and its paying off for them.

Congratulations to Ellen for an awesome job in finals! Good luck next year.