Breaking News: Sept/Oct LD Resolution Released
posted by Victory Briefs on August 15th, 2008
RIPON, Wis. — The National Forensic League announced this morning the September/October Lincoln-Douglas resolution:
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
What are your thoughts on the new resolution?
Popularity: 16%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 169.232.69.59
August 15th, 2008 04:53
oh.my.god.
Posted from: 128.97.179.219
August 15th, 2008 04:54
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
it is 4:53 am
am i dreaming?
Posted from: 169.232.71.53
August 15th, 2008 05:00
yay fun.
Posted from: 12.144.58.212
August 15th, 2008 05:02
Augh…
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
August 15th, 2008 05:03
lol
Posted from: 128.97.179.70
August 15th, 2008 05:05
Resolved: Jon Cruz is not funny.
Posted from: 74.171.15.70
August 15th, 2008 05:10
This is what i thought it would be but this will be interesting
Posted from: 169.232.243.211
August 15th, 2008 05:24
Seriously….
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 15th, 2008 05:48
it’s not April fools day…
Posted from: 74.70.110.205
August 15th, 2008 05:54
re: matt hershey
that’s exactly what I thought
Posted from: 67.163.213.77
August 15th, 2008 05:58
LOLZ?
YES. YES. YES.
Posted from: 138.89.7.228
August 15th, 2008 05:59
if this is it… Fucking A!
Posted from: 72.93.95.150
August 15th, 2008 06:04
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. THis can’t be possible. Why? It’s not on the NFL website?
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
August 15th, 2008 06:05
is this a joke?
Posted from: 24.151.41.11
August 15th, 2008 06:14
wait….seriously?
Posted from: 67.163.213.77
August 15th, 2008 06:14
i’m just… so happy
Posted from: 205.221.1.90
August 15th, 2008 06:15
Disbelief: refreshed the NFL website like a dozen times.
Anger: unleashed a litany of “F” words, enough to wake my older son.
Bargaining: composed (but didn’t send) a note to J. Scott Wunn, suggesting that *just this once* he should go ahead and change the resolution.
Acceptance. Practice begins at 6 pm.
Posted from: 67.163.213.77
August 15th, 2008 06:15
it actually is on the NFL site noobs.
Posted from: 67.163.213.77
August 15th, 2008 06:15
DAVE, THIS IS THE PERFECT TOPIC FOR JUSTIFICATIONS. IF YOU DON’T PICK UP A GAZILLION BALLOTS ON IT I’LL EAT MY OWN FACE.
Posted from: 12.187.255.2
August 15th, 2008 06:16
I demand a recount!
Posted from: 66.63.80.201
August 15th, 2008 06:21
how can they call this a resolution. it’s impossible to resolve a debate on this topic, it’ll just lend itself to a lot of rep-outs, presumption, and bad decisions.
but even if you didn’t think about the topic, who the fuck would choose it by just looking at it. middle of nowhere america coaches shouldn’t vote for topics that influence the national circuit if they don’t know what substance let a lone evidence in a debate round are
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 15th, 2008 06:24
we need Batman to solve this problem
Posted from: 71.104.135.43
August 15th, 2008 06:25
I wish it was morally permissible to kill this topic
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 15th, 2008 06:30
I’d rather debate about whether liberty is more precious than law!
Posted from: 72.93.95.150
August 15th, 2008 06:30
We honestly have to solve this issue. Everybody who doesn’t want to debate this topic should send a substantive email to the NFL saying why it’s a bad topic (and tell your friends to do so too). There is not way we should be debating this resolution.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 15th, 2008 06:31
Wow, this is legitimately depressing. I would like to extend a few words of sympathy to this year’s senior class. The last prong of your debate career can be a lot of fun, and it is unfortunate that the first two months of it was ruined in the most awful way possible. My condolences.
Posted from: 75.72.200.14
August 15th, 2008 06:38
Re: 21. Complain all you want about the topic, but calling out “middle of nowhere” coaches is not ok. Could we maybe recognize for a minute that the majority of students affected by the activity are not “national circuit” and maybe demonstrate a modicum of respect for the people who spend time teaching it?
Posted from: 72.130.138.114
August 15th, 2008 06:44
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
Posted from: 70.124.52.133
August 15th, 2008 06:46
This might not be original, but you have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME
I can think of zero real world applicability of this topic.
Posted from: 12.227.177.160
August 15th, 2008 06:52
THIS IS A JOKE. I WILL NOT DEBATE THIS TOPIC. PLEASE SAY IT’S A JOKE AND POST THE JURY NULL TOPIC
Posted from: 128.97.179.221
August 15th, 2008 06:56
I’ve spent the better part of the last 2 hours thinking about the resolution, and really it won’t be that bad. I have to do a topic analysis lecture in about 7 hours, so I’ll do some thinking outloud.
There is a wealth of literature on the topic, and really, it’s what a lot of us debate on topic after topic (the common good v. the individual). The lack of context can actually allow for more room to be creative.
Also, just because the resolution seems to be a “throwback” it doesn’t mean that the judging pool will suddenly change to a time when LD was more about speaking pretty than making substantive arguments.
A few issues of focus for you:
1. Research will matter. Know the arguments as they happen in academia. Yes it is a true philosophical dilemma that modern-day philosophers and philosophy students grapple with. There is a reason for the picture in the post.
2. Learn deontology. Over the past decade or so, we have learned to only pay lip-service to the concept.
3. Sophistication in weighing will matter. The to make everything about body-counts. Now you will have to learn to weigh on other issues.
4. Winning framework (standards, definitions, etc) will also be key. For those of you that love theory, here is your chance to flex your muscles!
Those are some initial thoughts.
Enjoy!
Posted from: 169.232.69.25
August 15th, 2008 06:56
this topic is the bane of debate
Posted from: 128.97.179.221
August 15th, 2008 06:59
And no, I have not been paid by the NFL to make those comments :).
After the initial string of expletive-ridden whining, I have found a cooler sensibility and am ready to buckle down.
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
August 15th, 2008 07:07
oh god…
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 15th, 2008 07:09
Bietz, I’m not really sure how you would weigh on this topic. How does that work? It seems like to weigh offense you have to operate under one moral framework or another. For instance, if the standard is consequentialist, you can compare the desirability of the end-states of your world to your opponent’s. On this topic that seems impossible since you can’t be like “turn - I save more people” when you’re the negative.
Posted from: 75.19.41.146
August 15th, 2008 07:09
Well this was a waste of waking up early. I’m going back to bed…
Posted from: 198.78.13.130
August 15th, 2008 07:10
I agree that the absence of context allows you to frame any number of possibilities, and aff definitions will be key. Real world scenario? Every day, on the shoulders of anyone entrusted with the safety of groups.
Posted from: 169.232.243.153
August 15th, 2008 07:11
wait…
for real?
Posted from: 128.97.179.221
August 15th, 2008 07:14
@Wade#35:
I don’t think its easy to weigh, but certainly people do it in their lives all the time. Think about the soldiers who are willing to die in order to protect things that they believe are more important than life… or even a government’s choice to send people to war. In there, in that decision, are fundamental questions of how much is a human life worth? For which lives are we culpable? Who has the choice.
You can weigh a lot of those things without having to resort to a body count standard.
If it is true that life is more important than any other cause or belief, have all those that have given their lives for a higher cause died in vain?
Posted from: 169.232.69.208
August 15th, 2008 07:15
Hey Rob, whenever you want to have that headsmashing party let me know.
Posted from: 70.241.92.247
August 15th, 2008 07:17
innocent lives bad ftw.
Posted from: 68.84.76.114
August 15th, 2008 07:22
i have been laughing hysterically all morning. really, this can’t be for real.
Posted from: 169.232.69.93
August 15th, 2008 07:22
ARE YOU KIDDING ME
Posted from: 128.97.179.157
August 15th, 2008 07:23
oh well…maybe it won’t be THAT bad as bietz says…
good thing i took Deontology and its discontents.
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
August 15th, 2008 07:24
:o(
Posted from: 205.221.1.90
August 15th, 2008 07:26
The topic is not that bad.
And I disagree with Wade on an important point: I think, “Turn, I save more lives” is going to be a really common negative argument on the topic. There are plenty of consequentialist arguments that accepting a “kill one to save many” mindset is ultimately anti-utilitarian. If I can remember back to the Pam Cady lecture in ‘90, I believe the term was “rule utility.” Or something like that.
Posted from: 72.93.95.150
August 15th, 2008 07:30
After a few hours of thinking about it in the shower, I think I’ve gotten over my initial reaction. I guess it’ll be ok, as long as people try to avoid deontology vs. consequentialism without having much substance behind their justifications.
Posted from: 208.99.75.32
August 15th, 2008 07:31
i don’t like the topic, but i accept democracy, so i’ll debate the topic. (:
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 07:40
David, you’re right it’s rule utilitarianism, but rule utilitarianism would still be an affirmative argument (the affirmative is the one saving the more lives), how the affirmative would argue rule utilitarianism states that moral actions are those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good, hence, if we murder one person just as long as we do it in virtue of saving more lives, we are intending to generate the most happiness, therefore conforming to rule utilitarianism.
Forgive the minor spelling errors or inaccuracies, it’s far to early for me this morning.
Posted from: 68.72.134.186
August 15th, 2008 07:42
I’m with Bietz on this. At first glance it seems like a crap topic but it has several complex layers. I didn’t discover most of them until I wrote an AC and realized all the details that need to be settled.
Greenhill will be fun.
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 07:45
Kaushik,
Wouldn’t it be more of a deontology v utilitarianism debate as opposed to deontology v consequentialism?
I am aware that utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism, but, wouldn’t utilitarianism be the more applicable moral philosophy?
Posted from: 69.154.10.171
August 15th, 2008 07:47
WOW FUCK
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 07:48
Petey,
I side with Bietz as well, this topic does have some minor nuances that most people might have not expected at first glance. Moral permissibility is in spirit of LD ways. Good ol’ philosophy.
Posted from: 128.97.179.73
August 15th, 2008 07:51
This took me by surprise.
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
August 15th, 2008 07:52
@Bobby
Most likely to give novices an easy topic to start learning about
Posted from: 169.232.69.218
August 15th, 2008 07:53
shit. shit. shit.
i think all debaters, at least all of those at session 2 should make a pact to debate a different resolution every round.
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
August 15th, 2008 07:55
owned!
looking forward to finally seeing some more complex/well thought out arguments on this issue.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
August 15th, 2008 08:00
I love the photo for the resolution. Very funny.
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 08:03
Travis, where did you find the picture?
The trolley?
Posted from: 216.138.124.75
August 15th, 2008 08:03
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one NFL topic selection committee member to save more innocent debaters from a crappy resolution.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
August 15th, 2008 08:07
Yeah, the trolley/cable car. Trolley scenarios are often used to prove the validity of the resolution…
Posted from: 69.154.10.171
August 15th, 2008 08:08
@ Xi:
That may have been the intention, but anyone who thinks about the resolution for a moment would realize that in terms of topic research and depth of argumentation this resolution is horrible for novices. I would have to say that all the other topics are at least marginally if not vastly more educational than this.
Posted from: 66.68.159.87
August 15th, 2008 08:15
……………….srsly?
Posted from: 128.97.179.178
August 15th, 2008 08:18
Bietz and Petey speak the truth.
Posted from: 171.66.188.170
August 15th, 2008 08:21
while my mom woke me up this morning, she told me, “the resolution is out!”
“is it jury nullification?”
“no.”
“is it truth and reconciliation commissions?”
“no.”
“what is it?”
“innocent lives.”
“NOOOOOOOO!”
i might have tried to strangle myself with my blanket.
at least this is an excuse to do whatever philosophy reading i didn’t do over the summer. and to write lots of theory.
Posted from: 137.52.177.152
August 15th, 2008 08:21
I have not read through all of this but I think it’s important to remind everyone TO ENCOURAGE THEIR COACHES TO VOTE FOR THE NFL TOPICS. The vote is available to coaches through the NFL website and all they have to do is fill out the ballot and fax or mail it in. It’s very easy … more than 50 coaches should vote.
Posted from: 70.244.39.207
August 15th, 2008 08:25
Last night I got pranked into thinking this was the resolution… it was horrifying to wake up in the morning to discover it was REALLY the resolution.
But what are going to do? The sooner you get over it and start working the better…
Posted from: 169.232.70.61
August 15th, 2008 08:37
RESOLVED: IT IS MORALLY IMPERMISSIBLE TO GIVE US SHITTY-ASS DEBATE TOPICS
Posted from: 70.244.39.207
August 15th, 2008 08:38
oh, and @wade: meh. i’d rather not think about that way. it’s too depressing.
Posted from: 76.186.59.216
August 15th, 2008 08:42
i seriously dont feel bad complaining about this topic. there were so many areas of interesting discussion and this one gets picked instead (not that this issue isnt important, just that there were so many other better topics). its not an issue of region or circuit or anything. i dont think it should be hard for anyone to see that its a catastrophic topic. clearly the message is more coaches need to vote. it just blows that it took this topic to send that message.
now the question is whether to adhere to the semi joking promise ive made for a few months about not being involved in debate for 2 months if this topic gets picked…
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 08:48
Jeff,
I am thinking about a grammar K…
hmm… haha
Posted from: 128.97.179.70
August 15th, 2008 08:51
I am not looking forward to debating this topic.
Posted from: 70.254.6.119
August 15th, 2008 08:54
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
WWKD?
What would Kant do..
He’d say, “Es ist unzulassig zu ermorden!
Egal was sonst folgt”
Posted from: 72.80.32.127
August 15th, 2008 08:56
It surprised me to know what the picture means… the famous dilemma of the trolley problem
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
August 15th, 2008 09:02
The worst part of waking up…
Posted from: 71.214.199.128
August 15th, 2008 09:04
how do novices without experienced coaches debate this topic? for most topics, it is fairly easy to type a key phrase like “jury nullification” into a search engine and find topical arguments. how do novices do that with this topic?
Posted from: 169.232.243.138
August 15th, 2008 09:06
CAn I kill myself to save the rest of you from debating this topic?
I’d do it.
Posted from: 128.97.179.178
August 15th, 2008 09:11
Re: wow —
I think research on this topic is very easy but it might require research that is not just electronic. Even local branch libraries are generally well-stocked with books covering basic philosophical dilemmas. There may well be more material on this topic that can be found in a non-academic library (not to mention an academic library) than on any of the other topics.
With respect to Nathan, I do not agree. More thoughts later.
Posted from: 169.232.65.107
August 15th, 2008 09:13
should we be excited?
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
August 15th, 2008 09:17
Re: Nathan’s comment.
I had been telling people if innocents got picked, I’d go into a 2-month LD vacation refusing to answer *anyone’s* questions on the topic since after doing some research this one wouldn’t be worth the migraines (oy the issues with case construction…or how to define utility….how to teach this to novices….or ground division….)
Thank you to those who voted for this topic, I will absolutely take that vacation right now…it’s great timing.
Posted from: 169.232.71.233
August 15th, 2008 09:33
I think the resolution is a very important question.
Posted from: 72.68.76.55
August 15th, 2008 09:45
well, this just took a turn for the interesting.
Posted from: 169.232.243.143
August 15th, 2008 09:45
GREATEST. TOPIC. EVER.
in spite of, or because i have spite for, the committee, i am going to make this the most critical, QUEEREST topic to ever hit the national and local circuits. I feel like this is a fitting tribute to the “person” likely responsible for the topic. Seriously, I am fucking jazzed and this is going to be a fantastic topic.
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
August 15th, 2008 09:46
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
This will be like a skeet shoot.
Posted from: 64.9.237.209
August 15th, 2008 09:46
wtf…wow…
Im curious how case structure would turn out on this res, considering it is just a big standards debate. wtf are the contentions gonna be?
Posted from: 169.232.243.143
August 15th, 2008 09:47
that sounds vitrolic and sarcastic. it is not. i love a challenge, and this presents such an excellent opportunity to stick it to the people who are like, “FINALLY, a real LD resolution.”
oh no. it will be gay’d.
Posted from: 32.145.75.244
August 15th, 2008 09:48
This topic is sick. Mac 10 handle.
Posted from: 74.73.188.174
August 15th, 2008 09:53
at first i thought i would hate this topic, but did not really consider it because its being picked was not a reality. However, i think that this is actually very good in general for LD as an activity because it takes it back to its roots of philisophical debate and encourages actual reading of philosophy and really understanding what it means rather than just having a vague idea, so it is educational in that aspect. Plus, because there is going to be so much definition debate and ground debate, it will have lots of theoretical ground. Plus, i dont see the point in whining about it because it is going to be a part of your lives for two months whether like it or not, so you might as well learn to like it.
Posted from: 24.12.193.28
August 15th, 2008 10:01
plus one to christian…
yay for not having to do anything on this topic but write frameworks…
Posted from: 24.12.193.28
August 15th, 2008 10:03
oh and +1 to BHill as well. My sentiments exactly…
Posted from: 128.97.179.70
August 15th, 2008 10:24
fuck me…
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
August 15th, 2008 10:24
hahahhahahahahahahahahasodijfaowiefawfhaeefiajojeif yes this is awesome
Posted from: 150.212.2.69
August 15th, 2008 10:37
+1 TO ERIC.
MAC 11? 12?
L.A. let the thugs in the club
A-T-L let the thugs in the club
Chi-town let the thugs in the club
Let the thugs in the club, show us love
Posted from: 169.232.243.147
August 15th, 2008 10:48
theory every round, let’s do this shiz.
Posted from: 68.153.115.232
August 15th, 2008 10:50
@67
I’m pretty amazing Jeff.
@71
No Danny.
Posted from: 169.232.243.175
August 15th, 2008 10:51
Eff.
Posted from: 75.73.217.69
August 15th, 2008 10:53
With the number of people that are displeased with this resolution, I’m guessing we’ll see a ton of unconventional definitions (i.e. ncaa death penalty). The number of these types of position available on this topic is absurd,
here are some of the highlights for me:
Innocent: uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
7 definitions as an adjective
Kill: to tire completely; exhaust: The long hike killed us. 18 definitions of the word kill when it has an object
Moral: 9 definitions as an adjective
Save: 11 definitions as a verb
Life: 25 definitions as a noun
With those words alone you can create 311850 unique interpretations. This is going to get messy.
Posted from: 69.140.239.225
August 15th, 2008 10:53
Eric’s hand is on that Mac 10 handle.
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
August 15th, 2008 10:58
“With those words alone you can create 311850 unique interpretations. This is going to get messy.”
fail
Posted from: 76.93.137.42
August 15th, 2008 11:01
is this an indian independence day joke?
at least we all have really really good answers to questions like this (which come up in literally half the resolutions we debate) for the next few years…right guys?
Posted from: 69.229.38.20
August 15th, 2008 11:01
Fuck.
Posted from: 76.212.198.208
August 15th, 2008 11:13
my local circuit will debate this until January and we will have to debate in front of almost all lay judges. Since this topic is so philosophical it will be hard to think of unique arguments that can be explained in 6 minutes. Personally, I dont like the topic because I think way too many debates will come down to util versus deontology, but I am looking forward to debating any unique arguments people can think of.
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 15th, 2008 11:16
yeah i’m sure jon was like ‘how can i fuck with the debate community today because after all it’s indian independence day and everyone knows that means JOKE TIME’
this resolution is a cosmic fucking struggle
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
August 15th, 2008 11:24
is this topical?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiVES
Posted from: 99.147.134.35
August 15th, 2008 11:41
My initial reaction: BORED BORED BORED BORED BORED PISS PISS BORED.
My second reaction: This is not a topic. this is not the world. It cannot be. This is a reality TV show. Or this is a prank by Zach Prax to trick Tim Hogan into cutting a bunch of worthless cards. Or something. Please, someone tell me this is fake.
My final thoughts: Either this is not the world, or I think I will be taking after berryhill.
Posted from: 169.232.243.113
August 15th, 2008 11:45
shit.
Posted from: 76.117.224.90
August 15th, 2008 11:47
Gosh. i stayed up for this topic and was highly disappointed , but, very big BUT, what is debate if not a challenge?
Posted from: 24.130.129.107
August 15th, 2008 11:52
THis has to be a joke. I am not even kidding. I think Mr. Mginnis’s comment on number 17, was dead on about his initial feelings of this topic except the only difference for me is that I HAVEN’T COME TO ACCEPTANCE. who picks these types of topics that take away interesting conflicts that are specific to a context, and dump a generic
util vs. deon
like, every debater inside just doesn’t like this topic. i could list a thousand reasons. Well respected coaches all winced when they saw this topic, how could they do this. WHO VOTED FOR THIS.
wow, there goes topic literature for sep and oct.
I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH DWEEKS number 105.
HOW COULD THEY DO THIS. LIKE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. WTF!1 its like they want NOVICE DEBATES on the circuit.
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
August 15th, 2008 11:56
What a deal!
Posted from: 24.130.129.107
August 15th, 2008 11:57
i know its INDIAN INDEPENDENCE TODAY
GOD DAMNNN SON, MESSIN UP MY STYLE WITH THIS TOPIC Dawg.
god damnnnn this topic sucks. i don’t even care if i am harsh with this. this takes the spark of LEARNING ABOUT REALLY INTERESTING POLITICAL ISSUES. INSTEAD ummmmm deon vs. util.
i mean this conflict is important, but it ISN’T SUFFICIENT for a resolution at all. a resolution requires real world issues that have contexts and background, and time frame, etc. etc. they are taking all of that away. this is going to philosophy soup up the ASS.
in fact DEBATES ARE ALL GOING TO COME DOWN TO STANDARDS DEBATE. like i’m sure i will see a strat that is like dumping five hundred justifications of util good / util bad and drop the ac or nc.
WESLEY SAVEEE ME MANNN
Posted from: 150.212.2.69
August 15th, 2008 12:03
rahul, has anyone ever told you how unique and special you are? because it’s true.
Posted from: 76.117.224.90
August 15th, 2008 12:35
After a few hours of contemplating thE resolution, I feel like this may not be the best resolution, but I do not feel as though it should be boycotted or should hold people back from debating in the upcoming months.
1) If it is true that coaches get to vote for the topic(I’m not very familiar with the details)then this is a lesson in both responsibility and maturity.
Coaches/adults will maybe vote next time just like they will in the presidential election, and not wait for the person(OR topic) they don’t approve of to be elected then demand a recount or the right to have some type of clout in the decision making process after it is already over.
2)Students/LDrs, I would think this would teach you maturity in , simply, to just suck it up. I know you’re allowed to post what you want but all the cursing and complaining isn’t necessary and are not consistent with attractive personality traits. This will test your ingenuity and your basic skills in debate.
Now speaker points will make a difference b/c arguments that are sped through on this topic will make no sense and will be MORE under-developed than usual and you know the best and only assumption behind every argument which will force people into very well researched and logical debates if thy want to be successful. Basically, this topic will test your basic skills as a debater and you won’t have “lay judges” or “unfair decisions” to fall back on.I actually think this topic will be good and spark a fire under enough young people to enhance and hone their skills for the topics to come.
Bottom line:SUCK IT UP AND GET TO THE TOC!!!!
Posted from: 69.181.125.79
August 15th, 2008 13:37
“Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend, and there come into view five debate coaches, all of whom voted for this topic and who would be sure to vote for other equally bad topics in the future. The track goes through a bit of a valley at
that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the brakes, but alas they
don’t work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can turn the trolley onto it, and thus save the five debate coaches on the straight track ahead…Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley?”
Posted from: 169.232.244.196
August 15th, 2008 13:41
I’m curious…if any of the coaches who are reading this voted for this topic, I’m honestly curious as to the justifications for why this would be a good topic. I’m not criticizing, I really am just curious.
Posted from: 76.238.242.87
August 15th, 2008 13:42
I second the motions listed on posts 36 & 60 (hilarious).
Posted from: 98.197.93.55
August 15th, 2008 13:48
i wanna hear some nice cynical affs
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 15th, 2008 13:48
Matt - I think I started to outline above why I think this can be a good resolution.
Posted from: 206.135.38.50
August 15th, 2008 13:52
+ 1 to epalm.
guns up, let’s do this LEROYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Posted from: 169.232.244.171
August 15th, 2008 14:00
It’s business time.
Yeah, it’s business time.
Posted from: 68.72.134.186
August 15th, 2008 14:09
fuckin’ thing sucks
Posted from: 69.12.136.2
August 15th, 2008 14:12
WE’LL DO IT LIVE. FUCK IT. WE’LL DO IT LIVE.
Posted from: 169.232.244.154
August 15th, 2008 14:21
I agree with matt. IF someone wants to defend this topic, I’d like to hear it
Posted from: 169.232.243.240
August 15th, 2008 14:34
I will defend this topic. This debate that this resolution represents has been going on for the better part of 3,000 years in one form or another, and those who have participated in it range from Kant to Mill to Peter Singer — if you think that you’re too smart for the topic or that it doesn’t rise to a level what merits your attention, maybe you need to take a step back and ask yourself why you’re really challenging the legitimacy of this topic.
Posted from: 169.232.243.240
August 15th, 2008 14:35
the debate, rather, that this resolution represents*
Posted from: 128.36.41.165
August 15th, 2008 14:47
I’d like to hear someone explain how one could actually a.) write cases on the topic, b.) teach this to novices.
A lot of defenders say “we’ve had this core debate over and over” but don’t bother to explain how one could actually go about executing it in an actual round. In other words, it’s an ok topic in theory, but what’s making people flip out is that in practice, it seems impossible to actually implement.
I’ve taught topics similar to this in class sections and they always end up being a disaster….why? Because the entire debate seems to be an irresolvable one between incompatible frameworks–frameworks we’d normally use to figure out other more practical, context defined issues.
IE what standard could you use to say deontology is good or bad that’s not dependent on some utilitarian justification or vice versa? Mr. Bietz says that we can still weigh. How can we given that the resolution “represents” a debate that challenges the frameworks that constitute how we understand weighing–heck the resolution is a question about if a particular kind of weighing is justified in the first place. If there is some meta-debate that can happen about weighing, I’d love for the defenders of the topic to explain what that looks like instead of sticking to the abstract like the supporters have done here.
Again, this is a good topic in the abstract, but if we are to do as post 112 says and “SUCK IT UP” (which was not exactly an intelligent way to make his point but whatever), then help the others who have to suffer through this by telling some ideas about how this resolution can be debated IN PRACTICE.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
August 15th, 2008 14:51
Don’t tell anybody, but for the hell of it I just put this resolution to a real-world test. It was intense, but I wanted to have first-hand knowledge of killing an innocent person…
Posted from: 70.138.201.87
August 15th, 2008 15:01
Haha. I like the picture.
Posted from: 98.200.243.13
August 15th, 2008 15:15
i love the topic. so so so much. not even joking.
Posted from: 18.243.2.59
August 15th, 2008 15:26
i haven’t payed much attention to the circuit over the last year or so, and i stumble back to find this? berryhill has got it exactly right; have fun. i’m sure you’ll have _a lot_ of fun.
Posted from: 71.104.135.43
August 15th, 2008 15:40
@# 123
Perhaps thats the problem
We’re trying to resolve 3000 years of debate in less than 40 minutes
Posted from: 128.97.179.221
August 15th, 2008 15:43
@#130
That doesn’t seem to be the case with the criticism. The case seems to be that people don’t seem to think there is a wealth of information on the resolution, or that we can’t weigh, or that everything simply defaults to utility… all of those things just aren’t true.
In terms of solving an age old question… debate isn’t about finding truth. It is a game. The game just became a lot more open ended than it usually is. Debaters will have a lot of ability to shape their experience on this one.
Posted from: 169.232.243.148
August 15th, 2008 15:43
I guess this topic isn’t as bad as we all thought it was at first?
Posted from: 208.54.95.143
August 15th, 2008 15:46
HA!!! I told ALL of you! ALL OF YOU! But you didn’t listen! I told you all of the “I hate the innocents topic” posts would jinx all of you and cause the topic to be chosen! I TOLD ALL OF YOU!!!
but seriously, sux for everyone who wanted a real-world topic.
Posted from: 71.104.135.43
August 15th, 2008 15:47
Its kind of hard to win this game if you cant weigh the standards against one another\
Posted from: 169.232.243.224
August 15th, 2008 15:53
stop talking zizook
Posted from: 128.97.179.221
August 15th, 2008 15:56
@#134
Just because *YOU* currently can’t weigh standards against each other doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to do so.
This isn’t a slight against you. I’m not suggesting you’re not intelligent or anything of that sort. Rather, just because something isn’t self-evident doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Posted from: 128.36.41.165
August 15th, 2008 16:02
I’d love to see where scholars weigh between these standards…. if it’s so possible… I still haven’t seen an example of where/how it can be done.
(in response to posts 131 and 136)…
Then again, if I knew I probably wouldn’t spill that on a public forum, still speaking of pofo, this topic will definitely push certain students of mine to that activity….that is all. Back to consulting applications..
Posted from: 64.156.58.130
August 15th, 2008 16:11
To those who seem to view the question as irresolvable, that may be true. However, the argument that there is no literature comparing the standards is ridiculous. This is an age old philosophical question and has been written on for literally hundreds of years.There are many moral philosophers who have not only given a comparison between the competing standards, but who have actually addressed the question of the resolution.
I simply see the resolution as a return to the incorporation of developed moral theory into framework instead of one paragraph on justice and ten or so spikes. Most rounds will either be debated of the case, or will come down to a framework debate, hopefully with sophistication in development.
Posted from: 71.214.198.64
August 15th, 2008 16:11
i don’t think people dislike this topic because they are “too smart” for it; it’s more like rounds will be a pain in the ass because it will consist of people busting out their stacked util and deont blocks and have a glorious blipstorm of arguments.
i’m sure kant, mill, and peter singer are pleased with our attempts to resolve this troubling debate
Posted from: 76.212.198.208
August 15th, 2008 16:31
@ 123
I think this is an interesting thing to think about (which is why people have been doing so for the last 3000 years) but not a good topic for debate as a sport because you will end up with a very similar debate 6 times every tournament, whereas with a more real world topic, there are a lot more angles to look at it from. Usually util/deon is used as a framework for a case but with this topic, it will almost always be the entire debate.
Posted from: 208.54.95.143
August 15th, 2008 16:36
There are some good economic arguments for this resolution (on both sides). If i end up judging at all and someone brings up rational self-interest I’ll give said person a 30. If you think about it for at least 30 seconds, it’s really applicable to the topic. And not just as a justification for util.
Posted from: 169.232.243.224
August 15th, 2008 16:38
zizook stop talking
Posted from: 98.200.243.13
August 15th, 2008 16:40
i just want to echo what bietz said:
the res isn’t just a deont/util split, and being able to choose your ground should really please 2 different crowds: a. those who want to take time to map out their advocacies and *think* about the res (it’s only the lazy and crappy debaters who will break those bad blocks, and we can punish them via speaks and being ready for that), and b. shit theory debaters who like to run bad theory.
this res definitely will not be the greatest from a judge perspective, but if i were in the student position, i’d be happy insofar as their is SO much you can do.
Posted from: 208.54.95.143
August 15th, 2008 16:42
@ posts 135 and 142:
Don’t be an asshole.
Posted from: 98.161.32.136
August 15th, 2008 16:56
Hey - did I come to the right web site? I was hoping to find a page where I could type all of the curses I possibly can. I don’t even have a productive point of conversation to make, I just want to get my foul language out for everyone to see it because it makes me look so cool. There’s no other or better way to display my angst than typing f-bombs and s-bombs as much as possible.
Aren’t we the educated lot who are so good at communication that the best way we can find to exhibit our displeasure is by typing expletives and in some cases nothing else. Wow.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
August 15th, 2008 17:11
HEY YOU BABIES!!! GUESS WHAT?
IF YOU THINK THE RESOLUTION SUCKS, THEN DON’T DEBATE IT!!!
Posted from: 75.73.217.69
August 15th, 2008 17:24
does anyone really call it the s-bomb?
Posted from: 128.36.41.165
August 15th, 2008 17:37
re: number 146… be careful what you wish for…
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
August 15th, 2008 17:40
It’s time for the criterion of human worth to proliferate 50 fold.
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
August 15th, 2008 17:44
i agree with bietz and quinn that this topic offers much more argumentation flexibility than other past topics. that being said, the lack of context encourages debaters to formulate their own interpretations that will advantage whichever side they defend. of course, it’s in debaters’ strategic interests to deploy interpretations that cater to their side (aff or neg), but absent any context in the resolution, i wouldn’t be surprised if many debates degenerate into debates about ground and theory slugfests. it’s ironic that a topic that seems intended to take LD back to it’s “philosophical roots” will likely foment so many theory and technical debates. i think that this topic is phenomenal for academic debate (e.g. exchanging emails or papers), but really not appropriate for competitive debate with timed speeches.
it is also a little bothersome to me that this topic doesn’t seem to allow for much empirical or social science-based evidence. any use of empirical evidence seems to require a previous resolution of the debate, since utilitarian empirical evidence doesn’t mean anything in a round operating under a deontological framework. this often happens anyways with other topics when there are competing util/deon standards, but debaters could choose not to operate in such a strict dichotomy for their respective criteria. with this topic, they don’t have much of a choice.
Posted from: 68.94.123.31
August 15th, 2008 18:54
I was discussing with Mangus the notion of whether the act of killing 1 to save many has to be a direct act of killing one dude for the direct result of lives saved or could actions that ultimately trade lives with a net gain of total lives saved (bombing civilians to quickly end a war, testing drugs on human subjects) be considered topical.
I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts.
On a separate note, I’m not sure I’m convinced that a resolution like this one is comparatively worse than a very empirical resolution with a huge literature slant towards one side (like what was seen at TOC). I think you had negatives win (I’m pretty sure) 7 out of the 7 rounds that occurred between Quarters and Finals of TOC this year.
(I’m sure someone better with debate stats will have the % of outrounds won this year at TOC by the negative. My guess is it’s shockingly high and even more ridiculous when you look from Quarters on.)
I think there is a fundamental problem in many resolutions that stems from a selection process that is not centered around a comprehensive evaluation of what literature is avaliable to both sides. When this is combined with judges that are triger happy to vote negative (That’s you Truth Testers and Line Drawers), many of practices that people disdain become neccesary tools for the affirmative to attempt to survive.
I’d argue that this topic probably comes a lot closer to creating a balanced debate compared to the TOC topic everyone seemed to love. In a variety of areas there does seem to be a definite disconnect between how topics are chosen and the type of debate that seems to be rewarded at the most competitive national tournaments.
Posted from: 169.232.69.206
August 15th, 2008 19:00
I agree with Corey. I’ve done more thinking about this topic, and while it’s a neat discussion to have, but it really doesn’t jive with the structure of a debate round. I think there’s some interesting angles to take with this topic, I’m just not sure it will make for the greatest debate rounds.
Posted from: 24.183.38.132
August 15th, 2008 19:32
To prep yourselves on the topic, I suggest watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
Posted from: 169.232.219.222
August 15th, 2008 19:58
I have scheduled a screening of highlights for my lab after we do our work yesterday. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one!”
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
August 15th, 2008 20:11
am i not allowed to post
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
August 15th, 2008 20:12
whoa…. computer bugging
Posted from: 69.128.229.150
August 15th, 2008 21:03
I take back my earlier, Gore-inspired statement.
After doing some research on the concept of moral permissibility, it looks like this could be pretty good, as long as people don’t resort to the 20-point dumps and whatnot.
Posted from: 8.7.69.231
August 15th, 2008 21:12
I’m thinking I’ll take the following actions
1. Cry and spew profanity
2. right a pleasant E-mail to the NFL people
3. boycott tournaments
THIS. IS. FAIL.
I did think of one kinda cool position though (one isn’t even enough >.<):
Kritik: there is no such thing as innocent people/innocence OR this situation never really occurs.
And screw the innocents on both groups: I wanted to run the 10 people case + the 10 GOOD people you have to justify killing to save ALL the bad ones.
Conclusion: dammit. Better not be a joke.
Posted from: 71.198.244.90
August 15th, 2008 21:23
Kritik: there is no such thing as innocent people/innocence OR this situation never really occurs.
That argument, that occurs on every topic [x is nonsensical, vote neg!] is bad. Please dont :(
Posted from: 69.154.10.171
August 15th, 2008 21:31
@ Devin:
But chances are a lot of people will.
Posted from: 70.253.99.211
August 15th, 2008 21:57
debate is nothing but a challenge…
Posted from: 76.176.142.106
August 15th, 2008 22:10
guys think about it, if we kill all the innocent people in the world we will no longer e able to have this debate
Posted from: 8.7.69.231
August 15th, 2008 22:20
@159 and 162
Yeah. I know. Ks are probably bad for debate. Work with me though- I’m trying to find interesting case positions. =P
162: so sinners can’t debate?
while I have you insomniacs here, what are you thinking for non-stock on aff?
Posted from: 76.176.142.106
August 15th, 2008 22:36
Cole, sinners can debate, but it would be pretty nonsensical to debate a topic that has no relevance in the world. Just think of it, no innocent people = a topic that makes no sense which = no debaters
Posted from: 72.68.76.55
August 15th, 2008 23:03
non stock aff = we need to have as many people alive as we can so we can launch them at the sun to keep it burning
Posted from: 24.118.230.158
August 15th, 2008 23:04
Counterplan: Kill everyone. :P
Posted from: 68.192.172.63
August 16th, 2008 00:03
@163:
mumper didn’t say Ks are bad for debate; actually, i’m pretty sure that’s not even close to his personal opinion, but idiotic arguments are definitely bad for debate, and idiotic people are worse
@Duby:
i definitely think that the point you bring up conceptually engages the “essence” of the resolutional conflict. i don’t really view the operative notion here to be the question of how many people are being killed to save the “many” the resolution refers to, but instead, whether or not the end of saving more people than you kill is justified or not. holding debaters to the alternate interpretation can still be dodged by actually talking about proportions and each individual directly killed as corresponding to some set number of individuals saved. that’s kind of repugnant, and body-countesque, but i really don’t see a compelling reason as to why we SHOULDN’T prefer the interpretation you articulate given these options.
i’m not really sure if one can have a good round without employing parametrics. at least, from my perspective, i’m going to hate rounds that don’t in some way narrow the resolutional context to something other than “everything, everyone, everywhere”
Posted from: 24.130.129.107
August 16th, 2008 00:52
I still can’t believe this. But after going through the whole comment list
i think that berryhill has explained my feelings to the VERBATIM.
Posted from: 24.130.129.107
August 16th, 2008 00:53
I don’t even want to start thinking of strats.
Posted from: 24.130.129.107
August 16th, 2008 00:55
Oh yea one more thing
Post 26 = the truth
Wade sheesh we lucked out dude .
Posted from: 69.143.221.102
August 16th, 2008 01:07
This topic is awesome. seriously. Tough for teaching novices, but whatever. Also, I agree with everyone who has said that if you think this topic is just about utility vs. deontology, you’re really missing a lot.
Posted from: 24.12.193.28
August 16th, 2008 02:40
I’ve been thinking about this topic a bit more, and I still hate it, but I’ve started to realize a few ways to create standards that can be weighed. It just can’t be approached from a util v. deont perspective. If you get into more discussions over race-relations (I’m blanking on the name of the essay. I think its by Bell. Its the one on space invaders coming to earth and enslaving all the black people) then it could get really interesting. Also, there is room for discussion over how a country is governed with talk of rights and economics (social redistribution of wealth). the problem is that this topic has no limits so debates are gonna be everywhere and plenty of them are going to have unresolvable framework issues. There are ways to debate this with good frameworks that are weighable, its just not going to be pleasant doing it.
Posted from: 147.9.156.249
August 16th, 2008 08:45
Questions (to get people thinking):
1. Who are morals designed to benefit? Are people (or societies) rationally self-interested when making morals, or is there also an element of selflessness?
2. Would people agree to laws that harm them (follows from question one, but the question here is about individual choices about social conventions)
3. why is kamil’s space invaders article making me want to go play the space invaders arcade game in preparation for when the aliens come to enslave us?
Posted from: 169.232.243.74
August 16th, 2008 09:10
Kamil, the story you’re thinking of is called Space Traders by Derrick Bell.
http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/uhs/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Bell.htm
There you go. I actually think that would be a pretty sick neg strat considering that Bell wrote that story for the reason of kritiking this type of question
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
August 16th, 2008 09:30
#171 is exactly right. This topic is good because it takes LD back to its roots. Perhaps this topic will actually be about philosophy and clashing standards for weighing Justice as opposed to treating this event like its “mini policy”.
So stop whining and get to work. Maybe you’ll realize that this is what LD debate was intended to be about, and the way it should be.
Posted from: 71.145.183.101
August 16th, 2008 09:51
Impartiality K on the Neg for me then. I don’t see that much unique AC cases but thats probably because I haven’t thought of the AC that much yet.
Also X( @ interp and definition debates
Posted from: 71.229.103.39
August 16th, 2008 12:21
moral subjectivism on the neg anyone ? lol
Posted from: 98.197.201.79
August 16th, 2008 15:36
There are some interesting neg strats out there… I haven’t found as much for aff yet
Posted from: 169.232.71.81
August 16th, 2008 18:21
Re: Someone from somewhere
Why do you have to create this distinction between LD and policy. In my opinion, the fact that so many judges are opposed to anything distinct that is derived from policy doesn’t make much sense, and is making LD a lot worse than what it could be. There are very interesting arguments like types of Kritiks and Counterplans that have not become prominent in LD yet, but that doesn’t mean they can be applied. Policy debate has been around for over 50 years, and in that time that community has established interesting, educational, and strategic ways of debating. Just because LD has a different title than Policy doesn’t mean it can’t use relevant principles of Policy. Should we not have warrants for our arguments because they do in policy? Should we not have evidence to improve the strength of our positions? I think the reason so many people in the LD community are quick to oppose policy-esque styles of debating is that they don’t understand them. If you take the time to understand why some applications of Policy to LD (like theory) improve debate, I think it will open your mind up a little.
I feel like philosophical debate can be very interesting, but that doesn’t mean you need a resolution that is so obviously rooted in philosophy. If you are genuinely interested in philosophy, you can take the time to research authors who have more nuanced applications to topics we often see in LD, instead of waiting for a resolution that nearly demands that you make arguments rooted in philosophy. Moreover, it’s not like you need a topic like this to have a util/deont. debate. Resolutions often t
Posted from: 74.167.81.134
August 16th, 2008 22:27
@ someone from somwhere
“clashing standards for weighing Justice”
1. no one is gonna value J
2. no weighing on this res … how do you weigh a deontological argument (we ought not do x b/c it violates side constraint) with a utilitarian argument (we ought do x b/c it results in the greatest net benefit)?
Posted from: 71.193.137.54
August 16th, 2008 23:00
I don’t think this topic is the worst ever but I’m not going to staunchly defend it. That being said, I think on the plus side there are a ton of interesting approaches to the resolution and tons of great literature, I really look forward to a lot of varied and unique critical debates that this topic lends itself to and allows for. On the other hand, I think this resolution has a major shortcoming that #179 touches on in the lack of ground for any non-metaphysical debate. This resolution practically denies any form of plan debate or even less specific empirical debates. Sure, I find critical debate very intriguing and educational, but debates grounded in the real world with policy implications are more applicable to debater’s lives and shouldn’t be excluded. Knowing about the ICC or the US using military force to prevent proliferation is important as they’re real world issues that citizens should be well informed about to make responsible political decisions, knowing whether or not it’s ok for me to kill someone to save some other people is less so. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very excited for critical discussions on this topic, but I will miss more applicable debates that other resolutions afford. Personally I believe LD resolutions should allow for both extensive metaphysical argumentation and empirical argumentation, and I feel this resolution expands one at the severe curtailing of the other. Even if the affirmative tries more reality grounded cases on this topic I feel there would be very legitimate theory the negative could run, it would be unstrategic as the evidence would be heavily contingent on the framework, and there wouldn’t be any good substantive clash because negatives are not going to be cutting a lot of empirical evidence.
Posted from: 169.232.71.81
August 16th, 2008 23:54