NFL Releases List of LD Resolutions
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — After months of community deliberation and a week of careful wording, the National Forensic Legue Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic Wording Committee has released the ten resolutions will serve as the options for the next set of five topics.
(Some of the ideas for these topics originated right in our very own VBD Discussion Forums.
The topics can be found by clicking on the headline above or on the “More” afterwards.Which topics do you hope get picked? Why?
R: Military conscription is unjust.
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reuniting families.
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
Popularity: 15%
test
Posted from: 92.118.193.105
June 19th, 2008 15:21
these are the resolutions for upcoming full season? or just the ones after sept/oct? (isn’t the sept/oct from the previous list?)
Posted from: 24.174.167.210
June 19th, 2008 15:47
philip- Yeah I’m pretty sure these are resolutions for after the september/october. That one will be from last year’s list.
…unless there’s some new kind of rule or procedure, but I don’t think there is?
Posted from: 68.104.4.9
June 19th, 2008 15:58
We were told in our committee meetings that the Sept/Oct topic would be from the previous list.
The above list will cover Nov/Dec 08 - Sep/Oct 09.
Posted from: 71.112.179.104
June 19th, 2008 16:02
Though I like some of these topics, I don’t like any of them as much as the ones we debated this year.
Posted from: 96.224.218.195
June 19th, 2008 16:11
I think this list is fantastic.
Posted from: 70.231.150.230
June 19th, 2008 16:54
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
R: Military conscription is unjust.
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
These all made me do a Tiger Woods fist-pump.
Posted from: 72.80.250.8
June 19th, 2008 17:26
I pretty much like them all.
Posted from: 98.200.243.13
June 19th, 2008 17:59
vigilantism, exit exams, parli, marriage, and torture are all awful topics. conscription is on the fence. the rest are decent.
Posted from: 68.104.4.9
June 19th, 2008 18:00
Quinn,
Care to explain why you think those are awful topics?
Posted from: 98.200.243.13
June 19th, 2008 18:03
conversely, the reservation topic and the crimes against humanity topic are amazing. i really hope reservations is jan/feb
Posted from: 216.9.250.110
June 19th, 2008 18:06
I also hope indigenous peoples ends up the Jan/Feb topic. I am a little biased, though. :)
Posted from: 71.112.179.104
June 19th, 2008 18:09
I REALLY like “R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.”
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
June 19th, 2008 18:17
exit exams… love it!
Posted from: 68.90.225.250
June 19th, 2008 18:28
i think this is possibly the best topic list i’ve ever seen.
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
June 19th, 2008 18:38
My faves are:
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
R: Military conscription is unjust.
Posted from: 69.118.234.129
June 19th, 2008 18:39
very good topic list.
no topic here that’s along the lines of “the actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals.” in other words, all these topics actually say something.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 19th, 2008 18:58
these topics are so small
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
June 19th, 2008 19:13
“R: Military conscription is unjust.”
I like it because it’s straightforward, and has lots of easy, empirical impact stories on both sides. One problem I can see is lack of any quantification/context-specification. Like, I’m generally in favor of “is” being read as tensed, except that with this res it jacks a hell of a lot of neg ground.
“R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.”
Don’t like, primarily because it’s so vague. Like, any and all sovereignty claims? I don’t think anyone wants to argue that we should let reservations, like, set their own foreign policy and militarize and declare war and such. If it just means that we should respect whatever level of sovereignty is guaranteed by existing treaties, then it seems hard to negate. And I’m not sure what the middle ground is.
“R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.”
Meh.
“R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.”
Eh. Could be a lot of fun, could be absolutely terrible. Either it’s interpreted as a debate over whether we should *adopt* a parliamentary form of government, in which case there will be disgusting framework debates over that interp and a lot of non-topical arguments, or you have to deal with context problems again. I think there are pretty clearly circumstances where each is preferable for various reasons.
“R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.”
Hard to negate, but maybe it just seems that way because I think the aff is obviously true. Like, even if there are decent arguments for attaching various legal benefits to marriage or whatever, they’re going to be the sort of arguments that are very hard to persuasively sell in a debate round.
“R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reunited families.”
Again, I think the stock neg args will be hard to sell. “People will be happy because they get to hang out with their families” is not the sort of impact that’s easily weighable in a debate round.
“R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.”
Good, solid topic. I liked the ICC-specific version more, though, just because ground was a little clearer.
“R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.”
I like, but I suspect a lot of people won’t. There will, I think, have to be actual, substantive value debates, probably involving wishy-washy arguments about the “purpose of education” and the value of disinterested knowledge and so forth. I like that particular wishy-washy debate, but I’m probably in the minority there.
“R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.”
Also good, solid topic.
“R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.”
I love this topic. Not totally sure why. Fairly clear division of ground, real impact stories and such, but I also just think vigilantism is cool and it would be fun to debate. Various Vin Deisel movies come to mind…
Posted from: 68.173.134.158
June 19th, 2008 19:51
yay torture.
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 19th, 2008 20:35
R: Military conscription is unjust.
i like, it seems like an easy straightfoward topic, if it was picked i would say it would probably be Nov/Dec
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
Its similar to the public forum topic, so i dont see it being picked but i could be wrong
R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
I see some really bad/unclear rounds on this topic
R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
Very interesting topic, but i agree that the framework is gonna be kinda hard to work with
R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
I like the topic, i see some very interesting affs on this topic, if it were picked I like it for March/April so that states, and districts would be fun and entertaining
R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reunited families.
I also see the topic heavily leaned to the aff side on this, would be interesting to see neg arguments on it though
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
I really like this topic, seems to have equal ground from what i can tell and its moral in a legal sense which is refreshing from the bland legal topics we had at the beginning of the year, definitely Jan/Feb topic
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
There are some inherent problems with this topic that I prefer not to go into right now
R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
Decent topic, very militaristic and boring to me though
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
This is a topic i would like to see for nationals, it carries a similarity to the domestic violence topic that i absolutely love, not only does the evidence seem good but i see some very powerful aff cases coming out of this but i also see equally as good negs as well
Posted from: 70.122.20.114
June 19th, 2008 21:23
Could anybody tell me what the expected LD topic for September/October will be? I don’t have the previous list.
Posted from: 71.112.179.104
June 19th, 2008 22:24
The possible Sep/Oct topics are,
Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.
Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Posted from: 24.45.11.198
June 19th, 2008 23:55
Three favorites:
“On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.”
First of all Native American issues should be discussed more - most of the time in school it seems like we’re taught that the settlers were horrible and killed all the Indians and now there aren’t any left. But on a more substantive level I think the ground division is relatively clear. Christian points out that the idea of Native American’s having a right to all types of sovereignty claims such as militarization is indefensible (no pun intended). Really? Why? Because Europeans won and only their descendants can have an army? Tons of good colonialization literature out there to be used. And I think it wouldn’t be too hard to framework out really extreme sovereignty claims; with the qualification of PLENARY power and since it isn’t worded as ALL claims ground could be centered along the lines of more topical current disputes such as monetary compensation vs. the Lakota claim to the Black Hills. Unfortunately, I predict a lot of Schmitt and similar Fascist arguments on the negative, but that seems to go with the territory these days (again, no pun intended).
“United States law ought not recognize marriage.”
Christian says that negating would be difficult. I think that’s not necessarily true, since if the law doesn’t recognize marriage it obviously can’t ensure that both gay and straight couples have an equal right to marry, since presumably marriage would then be relegated to the jurisdiction of private religious groups. Also I think it’s good if negating ends up being a little harder. It seems like a lot of debates would be reminiscent of the old separation of church and state jan/feb resolution from a couple of years ago (which in my memory was a very good topic). It would also be cool to see if more critical literature is used that criticizes the link that’s formed between sexual desire and state power through the desire for legally recognized marriage.
“Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.”
I’ll be honest, I really just want to hear six minutes of Paulo Freire. But seriously, the topic seems like it gives affirmatives a lot of options to counter the intrinsic advantages to negating. And Freire aside, there should be a TON of very topical literature on both sides of this issue (or so I hear from my mother who’s a teacher, I admit I haven’t read much of it myself).
A few other thoughts:
“In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.”
Affirmatives will have to watch out for negatives just arguing affirming minus a certain classification of exceptions (like the DP topic this year). For example, should inmates on death row be able to send in absentee ballots? What about someone who tried to assassinate a candidate? Not that these are insurmountable problems with the topic or anything, but just something to keep in mind. Overall I think it is a really great specific way to frame a resolution around concepts of free speech.
“Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.”
This seems I little too vague, although I like the idea behind it. How much vigilantism are we talking about? What constitutes a sufficient failure of enforcement? I worry that those oft heard and tiresome slippery slope arguments will proliferate without a clearer division of ground in the resolution’s wording.
All in all I think these topics are great, and I’d just like to thank the wording committee on what looks like a particularly good job.
Posted from: 72.166.143.226
June 20th, 2008 09:10
Conscription, felons, marriage, immigation policy, exit exams, and vigilatism are favotites.
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
June 20th, 2008 10:24
i really like R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
the list looks really good though
Posted from: 206.114.190.134
June 20th, 2008 11:07
“Military conscription is unjust.”
This could lead to interesting debates about coercion, but, I think it’ll result in lots of deontology vs. utilitarianism debates and not much more.
“On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.”
This has lots of great ground for both conventional and non-conventonal cases. Each side can draw from (post-)colonialism literature, former and current US policy, as well as the general literature about whether the USFG should have much power at all (e.g. federalism, statism, etc). That and the benefit of talking about indigenous persons makes this a great topic.
“In a democratic society, felons ought to
retain the right to vote.”
This, as a canned case, has been around in npda parli for ages. Although the aff ground can draw from critical race theory, critical legal studies, prison reform literature, and democratic theory to create some interesting cases, the bajillion PICs that the neg can run moot it having a fair division of ground. In my experience with parli, if the neg doesn’t run a PIC then the aff always wins. Whereas, if the neg does run a PIC the aff usually loses. Ultimately, I think this is too narrow and not a fair division of the small ground that there is available.
“A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.”
This could be alright. Though, it is a procedural debate waiting to happen because there aren’t a lot of terms of art being used and the key terms are complex, philosophically contentious, etc. Not the best. Not the worst.
“United States law ought not recognize marriage.”
I think this topic will force ACs not wanting to link into GLBTQ rights args (which will be most of those who are thinking strategically) to talk about really boring aspects of US law. For example, if marriage is not codified then policy concerning tax-law for dependents will change. In short, if it doesn’t result in offensive cases about those of the GLBTQ community and those who are religious, then it will be boring. No thanks.
“United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reunited families.”
WAY too narrow. Enough said.
“The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.”
I’m mixed about this one. The ground seems to be divided OK, and the foreign policy literature (i.e. realism, liberalism, genocide prevention, etc) is always interesting. But, it isn’t as good as the indigenous persons topic.
“Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.”
Maybe its just because I haven’t been in high school for awhile, but this just seems terribly boring. Although it may result in discussions over pedagogy (i.e. good ‘ole Paulo) I don’t think there will be an incentive for such cases because it’ll be easier to generate offense with more traditional of this aspects. However, it will give educators/coaches who are not as trained in philosophy, political science, etc, to assist more because its likely something they know about. So, again, i’m mixed.
“The United States ought not issue torture warrants.”
Too narrow.
“Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.”
Way too vague. It also will recycle a lot of literature from the violent revolution topic. Although, it could result in some interesting cases exploiting the vagueness. So if it is a topic it shouldn’t be jan/feb.
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 20th, 2008 11:36
pdve i only have one response to your analysis, and it deals with the marriage topic. I think because a lot of affs will be forced to actually explore GLBTQ rights and to what extent they exist is actually a very good reason to do the topic. The topic of whether gay marriage or marriage in general should exist is a perfect value based topic that should be debated in LD. So often in student congress rounds when ive seen gay marriage debated its never evaluated from a non religious based value judgement. I see a lot of killer analysis and amazing rebuttals on this topic.
Posted from: 67.101.47.129
June 20th, 2008 11:50
FYI, I’m using the wording from the official list, as I noticed a typo in the immigration topic.
Resolved: Military conscription is unjust.
My concern is the lack of current literature. Even those who want to radically increase US troops choose other means to that end. The only folks pushing a draft at the moment are those on the left who say it’s the only way to make children of the powerful serve.
Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
Very likely to be picked at some point. Hugely popular among those we asked.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
Possibly the narrowest topic on the list. Note that the aff. burden is to never take the right away. Neg. can advocate temporary suspension, rather than permanent ban.
Resolved: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
Last time we did a topic like this it was fascinating. Big issues will be separation of powers and encouragement of third parties.
Resolved: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
This was our attempt to allow those who want to debate gay marriage (there was HUGE interest in the topic) to do so without forcing either the aff. or neg. to argue for something they find abhorrent. Despite our attempt to do this (which I think was successful), I don’t think it will be selected. Too many schools say they will not be allowed to debate this topic.
Resolved: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reuniting families.
The econ. lit for the aff. is uber strong. The aff. also gets to claim the problems of chain migration (for example, how it distorts the immigrant population based on who arrived when). The neg. has the lefty/protectionist/wage protection args. and the squishy pro family stuff. Neg. can also, if they don’t like those options, go open borders.
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Should placate some of the critics of the old ICC topic by focusing the debate on sovereignty rather than specific flaws of the ICC.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
The issues here include civil rights (equal treatment of LD and ESL students, along with those who receive fewer educational resources). There will be pedagogical issues as well(Can standardized tests give a true measure of achievement for all? Will standardized tests narrow curricular offerings by forcing schools to teach to the test?). There are mountains of literature on this topic.
Resolved: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
A narrow look at a huge issue. In this case, I think narrowness is a plus. If we just debated torture we would get bogged down in the when and how of it, possibly being unclear about the extent of the aff. burden. Torture warrants are a specific proposal with a strong author (Dershowitz). We can have the big “is torture ever justified?” debate without wasting time establishing the scope of the aff. or neg. burden.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
Lots of folks love it. Not my favorite, but I think it’s a strong contender.
Posted from: 76.212.195.101
June 20th, 2008 12:23
the exit exams one looks way to much like a pf topic. I really like the one about submitting to an international court though
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 20th, 2008 13:25
for better or worse, it’s worth noting that the torture topic is bidirectional. the aff can argue:
a) torture is bad and the us shouldn’t use it
b) torture is good and warrants undermine our ability to torture
the neg can argue:
a) torture is necessary and torture warrants ensure that it’s used responsibly
b) torture is bad and without warrants it will go underground.
this might make the topic more nuanced and complex, but it will lead to some really messy rounds.
Posted from: 24.45.11.198
June 20th, 2008 14:05
In response to pdve on the marriage topic, I think it’s interesting that you specifically bring up the notion of queer rights, since most queer theorists would say that legally having the right to marry should not be actively pursued by queer people (since doing so would be modeling homosexuality on heterosexuality, and additionally that the benefits of marriage would still remain exclusive and deny other forms of kinship). So I don’t think affs would have to be offensive at all towards the LBTQ community, but just the opposite.
I also don’t see how arguing for separation of the religious concept of marriage from the state would have to be offensive. Am I wrong in thinking that an affirmative could approach this topic purely along the lines of separation of church and state? I quick search on lexis-nexis turns up some good stuff. I’ll admit that debating about tax law does sound boring, but I honestly don’t think most debaters will want to or have to do that. I hope that, despite what Lexy has said, this topic gets picked.
Posted from: 24.230.101.146
June 20th, 2008 14:15
Well, at first I didn’t like the topics much but the more I looked into them the more I liked them. I think I just wasn’t used to seeing topics I’m not used to arguing… I would prefer NOT debating the right to vote (because it would get repetitive and is too simple), exit exams, and torture warrants… and as of now, the other ones seem brilliant!
Posted from: 75.17.112.97
June 20th, 2008 14:29
First, an addition to #22, which I think left off one of the possible Sept/Oct topics:
R: International leaders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.
Second, on the 2009 list (and really the rest of ‘08) — I look at these topics and find far too many that are not intrinsically evaluative. Most of these can be argued without ANY references to value whatsoever.
I ask my students to classify topics as policy, value, or fact. I look at both of these lists and see only four topics that COMPEL debaters to evaluate issues on moral grounds:
Kill innocents (from ‘08 list)
Conscription
Parli gov’t
Vigilantism
As a coach, I enjoy topics that compel students to debate an issue in ethical terms w/o relying on justice. Likewise, I like a topic with a variety of moral interpretations. Given that, only the Parli topic really excites me, but I do like that, of these four, only conscription promotes justice as a value. From last November to April, all we debated was justice.
The wordsmithing that the committee does is brutal, so I respect their hard work. I also applaud those of you (coaches and students) who are already looking at value-oriented approaches to some of these resolutions of policy (which number, by my count, 3/6 on the 2008 list and 6/10 for 2009).
I just wish that, since it’s already hard enough for students to read, understand, and debate morality and ethics (especially new students), there were fewer topics that gave debaters the “out” of discussing pure policy matters in LD. You may argue that those LDers who do that will lose, but I and many other coaches still have to listen to those rounds, and if two folks do it, we have to vote for one of them.
What does that winner learn, then, even if we critique them? I’d much rather force their hand and compel evaluative debate with resolutions that truly make a value judgment.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
June 20th, 2008 14:58
I don’t get what you think the distinction is between “policy” topics and ones that are “intrinsically evaluative”. Clearly, questions about what policy a state should adopt are evaluative/normative/value-driven. And I don’t know why justice is particularly a worse ethical notion to work with in debate rounds than any other (I mean, absent some sort of philosophical, e.g. utilitarian, argument to that effect). Finally, I’m not sure how discussing ethical notions in the context of particular, well-defined normative problems (e.g. problems of policy) would make it harder for students to learn about moral philosophy.
Posted from: 206.114.190.134
June 20th, 2008 16:20
re: Isaac & Ryan T
I don’t doubt that some ACs will explore GLBTQ issues in educational, persuasive, and strategic ways. There is definitely fascinating literature which explores the jurisdiction the State ought to have over sexuality. I also don’t doubt, however, that some ACs will treat GLBTQ issues with insensitivity. Nor do I doubt that some debaters who take a Church/State approach will treat religion with insensitivity. Nobody has to be offensive, but I think competitors will more easily be offensive on this topic than on any of the others (Especially when considering that people are largely uninformed about GLBTQ issues and even more uninformed about religion’s relationship to sexuality).
I also have concerns about the door this would open to talk about sexuality. Although such conversations are of immense value, having them occur amongst minors who are often not mature enough to handle the subject matter does not make this an ideal topic.
All of these concerns revolve around this logistical premise: a topic should not make judges uncomfortable. I think this topic would make judges uncomfortable as people not already involved with debate might not involve themselves with it because they would be wary of either being offended because of their religious/sexual orientation or because they did not want to put themselves into a situation where they were listening to minors talk about sexuality. I think this is understandable when a lot of the critical scholarship which is vogue these days in debate is often R-rated.
Posted from: 75.17.112.97
June 20th, 2008 16:49
Christian,
The distinction btw how I view policy vs. value vs. fact topics lies in the statement of the res. Does it state that an action should be taken, does it assign a positive/negative/relative value to something, or does it state something else?
EXAMPLES: The conscription and parli gov’t topics make a clear value *judgment* — Aff argues that the former is unjust or the latter is preferable. Conversely, the exit exam topic advocates a specific gov’t *action*.
Of course, value concerns can be raised when discussing the merits of specific gov’t policies, and great LDers will do just that. My point is that, to affirm or negate the exit exam topic and its ilk, a student isn’t REQUIRED to make any value judgments. S/he can argue grad rates, college admissions, and other solvency of harms w/o ever discussing values. I think that’s why some have commented that this and other topics have a whiff of Public Forum in them.
Evaluative persuasion (x is good/bad) is a different animal from policy persuasion (the gov’t should do y), which is the impetus for LD cases being distinct from CX. For new coaches and students, it’s more of a challenge to learn to use evaluative persuasion with a topic that are instinctively policy-driven. It’s not impossible, but it’s an extra challenge I think we can avoid.
As for justice, I’m OK with justice as a value to debate, and there are many good ways to go with it. I just don’t want to debate justice **all the time**. If we’re going to switch topics every couple of months, why not ensure the values have a chance to rotate as well? That’s all I’m saying. Spice of life, you know?
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 20th, 2008 17:44
pdve, while i do believe that this topic offers an increased risk to offending people and being mistreated you have to understand that this thought was seen on the hate crime topic in florida. While most debaters treated their opponents and the cases and tragedies of matthew sheppard and others with respect, at the state competition in ld, I along with other competitors faced a student here or there that made some pretty hurtful and disgusting comments about sexual orientation in rounds.
But since this is lincoln-douglas debate where a debater must be well versed and prepared for both sides of the resolution, i see this topic as the perfect way to educate people on these rights as well as maybe promoting some tolerance while were at it.
Posted from: 67.101.47.129
June 20th, 2008 17:49
I think the distinction Paul P identifies is artificial at best. Saying that the US should do X is the same as saying that it is preferable that the US do X rather than not do X. It would, after all, be silly to say that the US ought to/should do something that is not preferable.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
June 20th, 2008 18:20
+1 to what Lexy said. Under just about any metaethical framework, X is moral iff moral agents (capable of doing X, acting under normal circumstances) should do it. *Any* LDer debating a topic that says “The US should do X” will argue that doing X conforms or doesn’t conform with some set of values (even if those values are pragmatic/utilitarian as is normally the case in policy). Short story, I don’t think the difference between LD and policy has anything to do with one of them being normative/ethical/moral/philosophical/evaluative/prescriptive and the other not.
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
June 20th, 2008 23:49
Just a quick response to Lexy’s comment (who by the way recommended awesome Thai food at the tournament this week):
“Resolved: Military conscription is unjust.
My concern is the lack of current literature. Even those who want to radically increase US troops choose other means to that end. The only folks pushing a draft at the moment are those on the left who say it’s the only way to make children of the powerful serve.”
There has been some draft talk recently, but more importantly there is recent topic relevant literature on programs like stop-loss, extensive use of civilian defense contractors, and over-use of reservists in the Iraq context. There are also many non-U.S. cases, such as countries where men are required to serve in the military (i.e. Israel), and places where children are forced to fight in armed conflicts (various civil and regional conflicts in Africa have been in the news quite a lot for this). There is some literature about whether it is appropriate that men and not women are subject to the draft in the United States (and elsewhere).
I hope that list also answers a bit the earlier concern that the only real issues would be individual v. society or deontology v. utility debates.
But I, like Adam N. on his topic, am a little biased : ).
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
June 20th, 2008 23:51
Oh - that list is obviously not meant to be comprehensive. It just gives a flavor of the diverse and currently relevant directions the topic could go for which there would be significant literature.
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
June 20th, 2008 23:52
vote early, vote often
Posted from: 76.110.240.54
June 21st, 2008 06:17
Thanks to the committee for their work on the list … I know when the list comes out there is generally a lot of complaining … there seems to be less this year. Regardless they all work very hard and as Cherian said - VOTE! Personally I like the vigilantism topic and have reservations about the marriage topic; although think that it could be interesting.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
June 21st, 2008 08:32
I would advise every team not to vote for the marriage topic (I agree with Christian’s earlier post) for two reasons:
1) It is an EXTREMELY political topic and therefore judge bias will have a lot of influence. I see very few left-leaning judges pulling the trigger on arguments for why straight people should have a certain right that gays should be denied and I see very few right-leaning judges abandoning their beliefs about “the sanctity of marriage” or whatever. Also, unlike the death penalty topic (which was also political), there are fewer ends-based implications of affirming or negating, meaning that most arguments will have to rely on principles rather than numbers, making the political aspect much worse.
2) Although it should always be harder to negate than to affirm, this resolution makes it nearly impossible to negate. To this day I have not heard a true legal argument against gay marriage, or even one that was justified in principle. The only neg argument that I could think of would be like “well if law can’t recognize marriage than polygamy would be legal” which gets a “so what?” from me. In general, I think it’s hard to argue that voluntary contracts that don’t affect 3rd parties can be unjust.
Also, as for what Isaac said:
“Christian says that negating would be difficult. I think that’s not necessarily true, since if the law doesn’t recognize marriage it obviously can’t ensure that both gay and straight couples have an equal right to marry, since presumably marriage would then be relegated to the jurisdiction of private religious groups.”
The problem with this argument is that it misunderstands both the nature of U.S. law and what the negative world looks like.
-Under current U.S. law, if your church tells you to do something, you don’t have to do it. Church-membership isn’t obligatory and since there is separation between church and state, religious institutions don’t have legal authority. So, if you wanted to marry someone of the same sex, you could do it, even if whatever religion you were a part of denounced it. It’s not like there would actually be a structural barrier to getting married in the neg world.
-The neg world doesn’t mean that marriage is relegated to religious institutions. That’s actually how marriage is done now, with certain legal constraints imposed by the government. I think the negative world is more like “marriage certificates don’t exist”. As in, marriage would just be a purely voluntary effort with no legal recognition whatsoever.
Posted from: 67.163.20.6
June 21st, 2008 09:59
Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
I don’t remember New Trier having those… And yes, New Trier is a public school.
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Reminds me of a certain topic that didn’t end up coming up. I remember: Resolved: The United States should accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Yeah, that topic.
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
June 21st, 2008 10:29
On the marriage topic…
The way it was written was specifically to allow students to avoid the GLBTQ debate if they so desired.
There are plenty of affirmative arguments about why the government has no place in marriage. And that the way it recognizes marriage is problematic (tax structures and whatnot). That sort of debate puts the affirmative far in front of the negative in terms of solid ground as the negative rejoinder is little more than ‘marriage is special and ought to be encouraged for a few reasons’.
Try to open up your research to include the entirety of topics before you damn them. Every topic has an angle that will be more advantageous to one side. The key is trying to see the entire picture the resolution aims for.
DM
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
June 21st, 2008 11:02
ken–lots of evidence out there indicates high rates of marriage (and stable families, which sort of confound the data) lead to social stability, decreased crime, etc. if marriage is a social good, then it makes sense for governments to recognize or incentivize it, which seems like a totally legitimate neg argument.
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
June 21st, 2008 11:11
I’d like to thank the topic committee for their hard work. I took the opportunity to sit in on a couple of their meetings at NFLs, and was very impressed with the thought and care put into this list. It is a thankless and tedious job that is much harder than might be imagined. No topic list can ever be perfect, but I’m confident these topics will facilitate some great debates.
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 21st, 2008 11:21
furthermore and argument which I havent seen brought up in the marriage debate before which I think would give both sides more ground is that there are different types of marriage, eg: domestic partnerships, civil unions, handfastings (wiccan marriages), common law marriages, arranged marriages, as well as “normal” marriage. These different forms allow a debater who wants to argue some form of equality or social welfare argument to show on the negative or affirmative that as a general rule U.S. law ought not recongize marriage instead of just having some abstract debate on religious or moral values. Because of the specific wording i think that these forms of marriage should be and would be explored.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
June 21st, 2008 11:26
Dan
-you’re right that I over-generalized the resolution, but I do think that most debates will just boil down to gay marriage should be legal vs. no it shouldn’t.
Smitty
-that is all good and true, but is that then the only neg ground? I also think that affs can just non-unique that by saying that people will (and have in the past) gotten married before the government incentivized it.
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 21st, 2008 11:29
cross apply my above argument to Ken’s argument about most debates boiling down to gay marriage should be legal vs. no it shouldnt
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
June 21st, 2008 11:39
i mean generally i think neg args will boil down to:
a) marriage is good and governments should encourage it
b) marriage regulation means fucked up things can’t happen (maybe polygamy, but also things like 11 year olds getting coerced into marriage)
also, keep in mind that the neg can CP to recognize gay marriage, which might solve the aff better (official government sanction determines social attitudes, more legal protections for gay couples, etc.)
Posted from: 76.168.146.27
June 21st, 2008 13:00
re: Adam T
“I hope that list also answers a bit the earlier concern that the only real issues would be individual v. society or deontology v. utility debates.”
I don’t think it does. The list but shows that there are multiple contexts in which the deontology v. utility debate can be hashed out. ACs will argue that conscription is unjust because it is coercive and NCs will argue that its just because of its utility (i.e. preventing the use of private military corporations). Seeing a though the literature on coercion is abundantly oriented towards deontology, I don’t see how this is avoidable. Thats not to say it won’t result in a good topic with great debates. But it is to say that it doesn’t offer the casing creativity that other topics do.
re: fact/policy/value, Christian, Lexy, Paul P
I don’t think Paul P’s distinction is artificial. Policy topics ask agents to perform specific policies: USFG should X. Value topics assign a moral property to an entity: Y is unjust. Moral properties can be assigned in discussing what the USFG should and shouldn’t do, but talking about what the USFG should do need not be discussed when assigning moral properties. They relate to each other asymmterically.
The semantics are usually quite different too. Policy topics require something to be done in the future, which could just be the end of the round with a “policy-maker” judge, whereas value topics require an evaluation to be made in the present (after the AC a judgment is made). Thats why running a plan on a value topic can usually be difficult. If you run a case overturning Kelo this doesn’t necessarily prove that eminent domain is unjust. One’s advantages could *not* talk about eminent domain but instead talk about the economic benefits of the overturn. So, absent a metaethical framework to interpret economic benefits as just/unjust, then a plan could be run which does not provide a relevant answer to the evaluative question posed by the resolution.
I disagree with Paul insofar as I do think topics like the standardized tests topic will involve the discussion of values. Given that such a topic contains a prescriptive term already (”ought”) it would be impossible to affirm solely using descriptive language. However, I do think that value topics like the conscription topic surface a discussion of values explicitly as opposed to implicitly like the parliamentary government topic.
Lexy says: “Saying that the US should do X is the same as saying that it is preferable that the US do X rather than not do X.”
I don’t see why this is the case. Its preferable that I give change to the santa bell-ringers outside my nearest department store come Christmas time. That doesn’t mean, however, I ought to do so. I’d prefer it if my roommate didn’t snore, but that doesn’t mean i have a duty to get him breathe-right strips or buy myself earplugs. Mere preference is not the logical identity of obligation/duty.
Posted from: 67.101.47.129
June 21st, 2008 16:27
“Its preferable that I give change to the santa bell-ringers outside my nearest department store come Christmas time. That doesn’t mean, however, I ought to do so. I’d prefer it if my roommate didn’t snore, but that doesn’t mean i have a duty to get him breathe-right strips or buy myself earplugs. Mere preference is not the logical identity of obligation/duty.”
Sure, I’ll grant that proving something preferable is a lesser burden than proving it obligatory. That does not, however, make “A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system” more of a value topic than, say “A democratic society ought to favor a parliamentary system of government over a presidential system.” The existence or non-existence of an obligation is a value question. The ought language in the bulk of the topics need not take debaters out of the world of value debate.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
June 21st, 2008 17:43
Thank you, Josh.
This was my first time sitting on the committee and it was a lot of fun, very revelatory, and a lot or hard work. I sat in with some of the meetings last year. One of the cool things about the committee is that, while there is a set group of voting members, the meetings are open and anyone can sit in and share their thoughts.
Re: gay marriage. I think there are a number of “left-of-center” neg arguments on this topic. One argument we briefly discussed was that if the government in the modern context simply decides to opt out of involvement in marriage, they are essentially rejecting gay marriage. Consider the counties in California that have stopped conducting marriages in the wake of the recent SC decision: the implication is that the state is so firmly against the concept of gay marriage that it would rather abdicate its authority in that area than recognize the equal rights of gay people.
Also, eliminating government recognition of marriage wouldn’t make marriage a “religious” concept - it would make it a “sociocultural” concept. The cultural and legal aspects of marriage exist separately and are intertwined sort of strangely in the squo. Any group or even individual can decide to conduct a marriage, and people can consider themselves “married” (in the eyes of God, in the eyes of their friends, in their own eyes) without government involvement. I think the question of whether marriage ought primarily be a legal or social institution is fascinating, even setting the issue of gay marriage aside.
That said, there was some indication from individuals at the tournament who reviewed topics that some districts might not debate the topic if it is picked. What do people think of that possibility?
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 21st, 2008 19:00
well i wouldnt consider it too much of problem unless it was the March/April topic (severely doubt it)in which case many districts hold there qualifing competition for nationals. Unless that was the case, a district could opt out of competing on the topic since thats its prerogative but if the students in that district really wanted to compete with it they should be allowed to.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
June 21st, 2008 19:52
Lexy, why cant schools debate the marriage topic? I mean, it’s not like its asking people to go against religious principles if its something like that. It’s just talking about the US govt, not control in general or something like that
Posted from: 68.90.225.250
June 21st, 2008 20:25
I’m not sure why the military conscription topic naturally falls into a deontology vs. utilitarianism clash, or at least, more so than other topics. I read the topic as at its core a question of what obligations citizens of a given state or political community have, for which the philosophical literature is robust. However, I think it adequately incorporates real-world concerns such as military readiness and what making war requires. I can just as easily see affs that say “military conscription hurts the military because conscripts are less able to perform their duties” and “state can’t force you to die for it” as well as negs that say “conscription good for national security reasons” and “state does have a right to force you to serve”. In short, the topic doesn’t seem to imply a straightforward clash between utilitarian and deontological principles, because both sides have good ground for both as well as a number of other good positions which defy easy categorization between the two.
Posted from: 75.17.112.97
June 21st, 2008 21:37
#53 - thank you for clarifying my position so articulately. That’s my point exactly — topics that *explicitly* compel a value discussion versus those that only *allow* such a discussion.
I would add, though, that the parli gov’t topic does force a discussion of values, but the topic itself doesn’t specify which values must/should be discussed. That’s why I like that res probably more than all the others. Upon what do you base your preference? Lots of options, though admittedly, some values may be less ethical (efficiency) than others.
Lexy, I LOVE your re-wording of that topic by the way! You’ve essentially defined the value (democracy), but that’s a nice, broad goal w/ lots of avenues. Note, though, that if you subbed “the U.S.” for “demo soc”, I don’t need to discuss values at all. I could argue that one system is cheaper and leads to less voter fraud and still affirm/negate (assuming my opponent lets me get away w/ shirking my LD duties =).
And you’re right: the use of “ought” need not exclude a value debate. However, I’ve seen LDers neglect/dodge those value questions in rounds when they can, especially my own kids, and I’d rather not give them the chance.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
June 21st, 2008 23:04
I think it would be hilarious if districts opted out of debating a topic that was vaguely, peripherally, sort of about gay marriage. It amuses me that that’s a more controversial, touchier issue than conscription, torture, or the structure of the US government. I guess that’s what God’s got a bug up his butt about at the moment, but still…
Dave, I don’t really get your proposed neg argument. It sounds like the neg would have to effectively fiat that the policy of no longer legally recognizing marriages was implemented under circumstances that would lead people to interpret it as a rejection of gay marriage, which is a pretty tall order. Like, clearly how the policy was perceived would depend on who was voting for it and what they were saying, and by far the more likely scenario is that it would be liberal legislators voting for it and saying things that were generally pro-gay marriage. And unless there’s a public perception that the intent behind the policy was to reject gay marriage, I can’t imagine what the impact would be.
The one thing I like about the topic is that I could conceivably see straight-up debates over the truth of Christianity. I don’t really see any holes in the argument that *if* you want to be a Christian, you’ve got to believe what’s in the Bible (dem’s da rules), which does pretty clearly come out against gay guys (though, interesting, not so clearly against lesbians–I’m not sure that there really is a scriptural basis for opposition to lesbian marriage). So couple that with some empirics about Jesus appearing on tacos and miraculous healings and such, and you’ve got an NC going. That will definitely be our strat if the topic gets picked. Then either the 1AR will be baller and go for four minutes of problem of evil, Biblical inconsistency/errancy, and metaphysical arguments against the existence of the supernatural, or it will suck and spend those four minutes trying to explain how “to lay with another man as with a woman is an abomination” is really just a metaphor wrapped in a simile.
Now that I’ve sufficiently offended the Christian left, I’ll go to sleep.
Posted from: 76.238.5.156
June 21st, 2008 23:17
Zisook I just read your comment and they call those the PSAEs also known as the Prairie State Exams. Those are public tests administered by every school and you need to pass them to graduate.
Posted from: 24.176.180.161
June 21st, 2008 23:47
R: Military conscription is unjust.
Other than just the coersive v. utility arguments that have been put out, I don’t necessarily think that concepts of deontology or util are locked on sides. For example, the affirmative could argue the economic impact of conscription as negative - which would have utilitarian implications. Moreover, the neg could argue that military conscription is avoidable because one could leave the country, expatriate, etc. so it is in a way voluntary. Negs could also say it doesn’t violate conditions for justice like non-discrimination because when they aren’t categorical they are usually random. Additionally, there is no reason why a deon. v. util debate is bad. At the very least it would teach debaters better weighing analysis.
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
I really like this topic. There are a lot of issues that affect native americans that should be discussed. Am I wrong in thinking that because plenary power means, something along the lines of complete authority that the any claims to indian sovereignty beyond the status quo is aff ground (e.g. greater water rights)? That should be easy to affirm as long as affs can come up with a reasonable expansion, which shouldn’t be hard. Negating should be fine as well, and I think a lot of negs could potentially discuss issues of the nature of how nations should treat the colonized, (does might make right?). But the neg could also discuss the vagueness of the resolution (no brightline for which sovereignty claims are legit = unworkable legal framework). I just think there’s good ground on both sides.
R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
I think this is another good topic. But I think some negs will get overzealous and claim the aff has a categorical burden and try to prove certain instances where felons shouldn’t vote (illegal immigrants being a good example). However, barring that I think it will be a good topic. The only thing I don’t like is that lots of debaters use the social contract as a crutch already, and this just encourages it more. (that’s not to say we have to use the social contract, but a lot will, and those debates are getting a bit tired after 3 years of hearing locke over and over again).
R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
I think this topic’s benefit will be more from the education it gives by getting kids to research their governments than it’s debatability. I think there will be a lot of vague framework debates about what aspects of government are more important than others (including 3rd parties v. governmental stability (it’s just an example, I know GB empirically denies the latter)).
R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
I really like this topic. I don’t think it requires a gay marriage debate because there are other issues like tax law, and the social aspects of marriage as well. However, I do think a gay marriage debate would be exciting. I also think that the topic is bidirectional on that issue because aff could say a) GM good and gov’t not recognizing it means no legal barriers to it, or b) GM bad and no legal framework for marriage leaves it to religions most of whom condemn it and won’t perform gay marriages. And neg could say a) GM good and providing a legal framework for it ensures the legal right to it, or b) GM bad and using the law to block it is the best option.
R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reuniting families.
I like the topic, because I think it provides a good economics v. compassion debate. Which, at least to me sounds good. Outside of that some issues with the topic is that is functions absent of what the motives to come over are. Like pre-holocaust would it have been better to save nuclear engineers first v. whole families? Or in cases of poverty driven immigration wouldn’t admitting skilled workers first make the country they come from even more economically unstable, and wouldn’t admitting whole families provide relief to a greater number since there are obviously more people who have families than are skilled workers. Also why can’t one side perm the other and say skilled workers often have family, negate by doing both?
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
I don’t like the topic, just because I think the neg ground is pretty bad. Like first thoughts on neg positions are sovereignty good (easily turnable). international courts fail (not a super amount of evidence, but some), and crimes against humanity good. I just don’t think there is a wide enough range of neg arguments to prevent negs totally getting prepped out by a hard working aff debater. Not that negs shouldn’t have it harder, I just think there is a uniquely small supply of arguments on this topic.
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
I’m indifferent. Meh.
R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
I also like the fact that this topic is bidirectional, which heavily mitigates the influence of the political aspect of the resolution. I’m just wondering how many tournaments in it will be before I hit a neg running plan plus, saying no countries ought to issue torture warrants. I think in front of tech judges negs will be better served, and in front of lay judges affirmatives could do well depending on how they use the bidirectional factor in the resolution.
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
The biggest problem I see is what is the brightline for enforce? Also, does vigilantism happen along the lines of the law that the governemnt didn’t enforce or does it happen beyond the limitations of the law (which happens in some vigilante cases)(ie, someone steals your car and the cops don’t catch him, so you hunt him down and murder him even though the legal framework would’ve just given him time…also what happens if in the scenerio you lock him up in your basement for 15 years? I think some punishments only the state should be allowed to use). :/
Posted from: 24.176.180.161
June 21st, 2008 23:49
btw some of the arguments above are used just to show the existence of an alternate approach to a topic, I am not necessarily endorsing them as good arguments.
Posted from: 75.43.57.229
June 22nd, 2008 11:20
I’m biased because I submitted the topic on exit exams, but I think it could be really interesting. A lot of the issues involved go directly to questions pertaining to civil rights. One of the original justifications for the TAKS test in Texas (our standardized state exam, which used to be known as the TAAS) was that such testing could make schools accountable to racial minority groups and lower income students that were hitorically underserved. Test scores in Texas are broken down by race and class so that schools can be evaluated in terms of how they are serving these demographics. When you look at the break down along these lines, the results are highly disturbing. However, there have also been class action laswsuits filed on behalf of underserved groups when these tests have kept students from getting their diplomas who have passed their courses. Also, many teachers I know feel that these exams harm students in demographics identified as lower performing because there is so much teaching to the test rather than curriculum focused on critical thinking. Plus, the standards place a lot of constraints on teachers in the core subjects. I know very good English teachers who have left the field because of the effects of standadized testing on their clasrooms and their creative abilities. Yet, the exams do reveal that there is still a big problem with the education being received by many students. For supporters, the question is one of accountability. “High stakes testing” (exams that can determine things like graduation) has become a very controversial issue in education and much more prevalent in schools due to policies such as No Child Left Behind. The tests raise all kinds of questions regarding those underserved in education, which I think makes it a topic that students in debate will find very stimulating once they get into the literature. It is one of those topics that can become better and better from tournament to tournament as debaters get deeper into the issues.
Also, the parlimentary topic is cool. I debated it in high school and learned a lot about government because of it.
Posted from: 24.193.149.146
June 22nd, 2008 17:17
The exit exams resolution is horrible.
Posted from: 199.120.105.71
June 22nd, 2008 19:22
um,that is an assertion. any reasons? this is a debate site.
Posted from: 119.42.69.136
June 23rd, 2008 03:14
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
I really hope that this topic will get debated. It is a topic that almost no mainstream news service or other outlet talks about yet I regard it as a very important issue that the world faces today. I am a bit disappointed that the topic is confined to the United States since there are cases of really severe human rights abuses that still go on in other parts of the world against indigenous peoples. I’ve been living in Australia for the past few months and I’ve really taken a likening to the issues of indigenous people after learning about the Stolen Generation in Australia.
But even with the context of the debate limited in scope to the US I think there are plenty of issues to talk about. I’m really glad the NFL has included a resolution on this issue as it is not well taught in schools (high school or university settings) and is often taken less seriously as other human rights issues (and this is a human rights issue).
The one think that puzzles me a bit is the use of the world plenary. It implies in some way the the USFG actually has absolute power over its territory. I mean, have we forgotten that even the government cannot violate the constitution (albeit, they can change the constitution)? I just think that word is a bit extreme for the topic and I would hope that if the topic is chosen the phrasing be changed to reflect that. I can def envision debaters using that word to totally veer off course from the real focus of the debate.
Anyway, good list of topic overall.
Posted from: 24.176.180.161
June 23rd, 2008 09:57
I think the use of the world plenary doesn’t assume the US has total power, but instead is meant to rule out case positions advocating a compromise. I’m fairly sure it’s asking whether soveriegnty claims come before what the US wants assuming they’re incompatible.
Without the word plenary it would just read ‘power’ and people would think the resolution asked about making native tribes more powerful than the government, and if you took out ‘plenary power’ the resolution becomes non-sensical.
Posted from: 65.89.135.202
June 23rd, 2008 10:50
“Then either the 1AR will be baller and go for four minutes of problem of evil, Biblical inconsistency/errancy, and metaphysical arguments against the existence of the supernatural, or it will suck and spend those four minutes trying to explain how “to lay with another man as with a woman is an abomination” is really just a metaphor wrapped in a simile.”
oh my god…thank you christian. that would be goddamn amazing.
but yeah, i like the marriage topic the most, mainly since the closest i can ever remember a topic coming to dealing with anything queer was the domestic violence topic, and that was extremely tangentially. other than that, indigenous peoples would also be really, really interesting, since its also an area that hasnt been talked about that much before.
Posted from: 208.118.184.3
June 23rd, 2008 11:05
Re: 67
“Plenary power” doctrine is a particular concept used extensively throught literature on Indian law issues, Native American sovereignty claims, and the discussion both by and about U.S. courts’ treatment of those claims.
Google together:
“plenary power” “Native Americans”
Should demonstrate how rich and interesting the debate can be.
Posted from: 208.118.184.3
June 23rd, 2008 11:06
throughout*
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
June 23rd, 2008 17:58
In fact, I think Anjan points out something important. Before people declare this resolution ‘horrible’ or that one ‘great’, do a bit of basic research and you will find a host of (hopefully) interesting facets to these topics you may not have thought about.
Then VOTE! (but please do some reading first so you know what you are voting for/against)
Posted from: 82.109.88.42
June 24th, 2008 07:42
felon voting and ICC…fantastic topics.
Posted from: 141.224.148.3
June 24th, 2008 09:21
We’re debating the torture topic at MDAW right now, and it’s been pretty fun and given rise to some interesting debates, but the one big problem I see with debating it for two months is that the *only* core negative literature that seems to be out there is a few articles by Alan Dershowitz. Within the small group of authors in the academic lit who are pro-torture, he’s the only one who talks at any real length about torture warrants in particular. Maybe there’s lit we just haven’t found yet, but Lexis and JStor searches for “torture warrants” in abstracts or title turn up one or two results at most (none on JStor).
Posted from: 67.101.47.129
June 24th, 2008 09:44
Christian is correct–Dershowitz is THE author for torture warrants. That said, you’ve still got the less specific (but equally important) work to do on the question of whether torture can ever be justified. Note that we flipped the burdens to make life harder for the negative in order to balance the current bias in decisions.
Posted from: 67.101.47.129
June 24th, 2008 09:49
re: my above, this would be a great Nov/Dec, March/April topic, or Nationals. I’d hate to see it for Jan/Feb, which goes on forever. I’d also hate to see it for a Sept/Oct, simply because most of California stays with that topic until the March/April is announced (ack!).
Remember, the new system lets you pick WHEN a topic is used. Please keep this in mind when you vote.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
June 24th, 2008 10:31
Is anyone interested in disclosing their upcoming votes? Not just the resolutions selected but which time slot each resolution ought to be debated? I’d be interested in that conversation just as much as individual critiques of resolutions. I’ll get mine out as soon as I decide…
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
June 24th, 2008 10:39
Okay, as of today, here’s my probable ballot:
Nov/Dec–International Court
Jan/Feb–Indigenous
March/April–Felons
NFL–Torture or Vigilantism
Sept/Oct–Military Conscription
Posted from: 68.90.225.250
June 24th, 2008 10:55
I don’t have a vote, but if I did, I think my rankings would be almost identical to #78. Bravo.
Posted from: 205.166.161.61
June 24th, 2008 12:56
re: post 77
My coach lets me pick what topics he votes for since Im the only lder there ever is and was at my school. That being said here’s my school’s vote for now
Nov/Dec: Torture (this and Nats topic im not sure about)
Jan/Feb:International Court (I see some very good TOC rounds on this topic)
March/April: Marriage
Nats:Indigenious People
Sep/Oct: Military Conscription
I’d be happy to debate the reasons for my vote if anyone wishes to.
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
June 24th, 2008 16:47
[…] You can discuss all ten potential resolutions at length here. […]
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
June 25th, 2008 08:54
is this:
“The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.”
supposed to be not ICC specific? If so, how do you debate that the U.S. should submit to a court’s jurisdiction without knowing any of the relevant features of that court?
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
June 25th, 2008 09:34
“how do you debate that the U.S. should submit to a court’s jurisdiction without knowing any of the relevant features of that court?”
probably the same way we debate most ld resolutions?
Posted from: 204.198.73.109
June 25th, 2008 11:13
Ryan, given that many folks seem to think that a “lay judge” might have difficulty divorcing (no pun intended!) her views on marriage from her ballot, why have you decided to go with the marriage topic for March/April, a lay judge-heavy topic?
Posted from: 141.224.148.3
June 25th, 2008 13:15
My preliminary ballot:
Nov/Dec: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. (I don’t know why, but I like empirical IR topics for Nov/Dec. I guess b/c there are a lot of Midwest tournaments in that span where those topics are easy to debate well.)
Jan/Feb: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. (I just really like this topic, and I think there are enough angles that it can last the required five months without getting horribly boring)
Mar/Apr: (Don’t debate it, don’t really care. I’d prolly vote for a topic that I hate but I think has a chance of winning just so it doesn’t get picked for another slot. Maybe felons voting.)
NFLs: Military conscription is unjust. (Simple enough that you can have quality debates at the first tournament without having to sort through a slough of framework and standards issues, with decent stock arguments on both sides that will pretty reliably appeal to Nationals judges)
Sept/Oct: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reuniting families.
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
Posted from: 141.224.148.3
June 25th, 2008 13:15
Oops, didn’t mean to leave the rest of the topics copy-pasted below…
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 25th, 2008 13:47
re:84
there is a few reasons:
1) even though its heavy percieved to be a biased topic i think that in actual debate rounds only judges who havent been told anything about the event will actually be heavily influenced on the topic, and even then it happens on almost every topic.
2) even though a lot of debate rounds will end up focusing on LGBT rights I think that those particular rounds will be extremely educational not only for the debaters but also the judges as well. A lot of the so called “lay judges” know very little on the topic or the historical importance of it, therebye making the rounds that much more interesting and fulfilling.
in florida during March/April we have our state tournament as well as both our qualifing tournaments. the reason why i put it in that slot is because judges who know very little on the topic will be very entranced in these rounds because the topic is an interesting one with historical importance, and i dont see many lay judges being heavily biased on the topic, there are very few tournaments on that cycle and even during these important tournaments i see rhetoric and solid arguments being rewarded over speed especially during march/april. This is the first topic i can honestly say that equal burden is possible.
3) I realize some coaches and debaters feel uneasy getting into those type of rounds on the topic but thats problematic for two reasons:
a) If someone truly wanted to avoid that type of debate they could run other arguments that could also shift the judges attention from the so called bias on this topic.
b) I dont really talk about this on this site but for those of you who dont know I am the only openly gay debate captain in south florida. And I have had to get in debates in florida where i had to condem gay rights even though its extremely against what I believe in. If I had to do it, all I can say is suck it up and try the best you can in an awkward round like that. I won that round so I dont doubt that people who actually do very well on the national circuit could do better than me in those types of rounds.
Anyway enough of me babbling, I hope everyone gets my reasons for picking that topic and for March/April.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
June 27th, 2008 08:13
Christian: Weirdly enough, it took your post for me to see that “torture warrants” would be a solid Sept/Oct topic. As you know, a good Sept/Oct topic is one that novices can sink their teeth into and give them a taste of standard util/deon clash. I had thought that “military conscription” would be a better Sept/Oct topic for the novices, but now I think you’ve changed my mind. However, can you (or anyone who agrees with Christian) elucidate on why you think the “vigilantism” topic is broad enough for Jan/Feb. I guess I can’t see it yet, but I’m open.
Posted from: 141.224.148.3
June 28th, 2008 14:49
We’ve just now started researching vigilantism as the second MDAW camp topic, so I can say a little more about what I think would make it a good Jan/Feb/TOC topic.
(1) There’s a ton of room for specified affirmative advocacies (whether framed as plantexts or otherwise) dealing either with specific vigilante groups, specific types of crime (e.g. everyone can break their domestic violence cases back out), or specific countries. That by itself creates more or less endless variety in terms of ACs.
(2) There’s a lot of different bodies of lit which deal in one way or another with the topic. Very solidly traditional LD lit like social contract arguments and Kantian retributivism are immediately and easily applicable, along with significant bodies of lit from political science (limits of the state’s monopoly on force, interaction between states and armed NGO’s, etc.), legal theory (e.g. legal positivism NC’s), philosophy and even some IR. There should be lots of simple empirical impact scenarios too, and also a pretty reasonable amount of crit ground, e.g. feminism, CLS, CRT and so forth probably on either side of the res.
(3) Really the only major framework issues have to do with specification/conditionality. There’s enough ambiguity in the resolution to give rise to some amount of theory/framework debate without turning into a disgusting muddle like the corporations topic did.
Posted from: 76.117.160.74
July 15th, 2008 14:31
The entire list is questionable. Not to say that they aren’t “juicy” in a word, but I don’t think they have as much of a centralized clash with as many options as the corporations topic did.
Posted from: 75.5.75.24
July 15th, 2008 23:29
I seem to be the only one who likes the immigration topic (and from a personal standpoint, I lean negative). As someone stated above, I think it would provide an interesting debate about the merits of economic benefit versus compassion and the value of family bonds/personal relationships. Just because negating the resolution doesn’t provide any sort of quantitative analysis doesn’t mean it isn’t debatable; conversely I think it would be an interesting and “different” debate to weigh things like the impact of family and relationships on self worth/dignity/etc.
Posted from: 24.176.180.161
July 16th, 2008 00:53
The problem is that because mushy things like that have no quantifiable impact it’s much harder to weigh them.
Posted from: 75.5.75.24
July 16th, 2008 00:57
As I already said, just because you can’t quantitatively debate the negative side doesn’t mean you can’t debate them. I think moral/ethical/rights claims grounded in philosophy are weighable even if they don’t provide a number.
Posted from: 24.176.180.161
July 16th, 2008 01:20
I never said you can’t weigh metaphysical concepts against other metaphysical concepts. It’s just that when it comes to weighing quantitative impacts (most aff ground) against lofty metaphysical ones (most neg ground) there is not a clear or decisive way to weigh them. I’m sure you could attempt it, I just don’t think it’ll be super clear because they are on two separate levels and any comparison between them is going to be totally subjective.
You might disagree and that’s cool - I just don’t think spending the whole debate reading blocks about why finite impacts outweigh metaphysical ones every (or a lot of) round is going to be cool or result in good debates.
Posted from: 75.49.37.173
August 14th, 2008 21:12
All of these topics are so Policyish it’s kinda ridiculous… Not to say they’re bad topics, Military Conscription is amazing and so is the Marriage topic. The rest are iffy… The only one I actually dislike is the Crimes Against Humanity…
Posted from: 98.165.143.83
October 29th, 2008 19:39
I like R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity because I’ve never even thought of an international court and defining “crimes agains humanity” would be fun.