BREAKING NEWS: Potential LD Resolutions Announced
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic Wording Committee of the National Forensic League has announced the ten potential resolutions for the 2009-2010 season. Voting on these topics will commence shortly.
What do you think of the resolutions? Share your thoughts here!
Afterwards, for coverage of Lincoln-Douglas debate, click here. For coverage of Public Forum debate, click here. For coverage of policy debate and the Individual Events, click here.
Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
Resolved: Records of an individual’s home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.
Popularity: 8% [?]
test
35 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Potential LD Resolutions Announced”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Double Elimination: LD
- BREAKING NEWS: Potential LD Resolutions Announced
- Sharing Codes: LD & PF
- Coaching Classifieds
- Sharing Codes: CX & IEs
- Shivani Vohra is 2009 National Champion
- Double Elimination: Policy & Individual Events
- Double Elimination: PF
- Exclusive Commentary on NFL Final Rounds
- NFL Nationals -- Live Blogging the Awards
Posted from: 68.117.247.229
June 17th, 2009 19:10
nice
Posted from: 76.211.232.244
June 17th, 2009 19:45
this is a really good list. I really like the simplicity of these wordings; the less parsing necessary, the better.
The only criticism I’d have is of the use of “unreasonable” in the internet topic…I’m a little worried that it renders the topic tautological (there’s no reason to ever allow an unreasonable search…that’s why it’s unreasonable). I’m hopeful that people would consult literature instead of playing bad word games, but uncertain as to how likely we’d be to avoid such gamesmanship.
Overall, though, great work!
Posted from: 99.147.134.35
June 17th, 2009 20:16
these are some really good topics; thanks to the folks who wrote and approved em.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
June 17th, 2009 20:28
to ankur, I initially looked at the unreasonable search and seizure thing and raised an eyebrow until I looked and it seems like its a legal term of art…i.e.
unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without “probable cause” to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.
So we are talking about search and seizures which would fail the tests of normal constitutional rights…
Posted from: 12.110.168.66
June 17th, 2009 20:32
exactly right Anthony. we tried many many many other permutations and went with the legal term of art which appears all over the literature on this topic
Posted from: 66.91.84.156
June 17th, 2009 21:20
great list – props to the committee
Posted from: 68.174.79.7
June 17th, 2009 21:23
NUUUUUUUUKKKES
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
June 17th, 2009 22:05
I like
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
but I think the Sept topic will be:
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt. (which is not that bad)
The Nov/Dec topic sounds like:
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
Posted from: 97.65.12.48
June 17th, 2009 22:12
Ruchit – the upcoming Sept/Oct topic comes from the old list. It’s possible you were talking about Sept/Oct ‘10, but I just want to make sure everyone understands how the list works.
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
June 17th, 2009 23:00
ooh my bad
Posted from: 74.2.55.226
June 17th, 2009 23:26
I think the torture resolution would be good for sept/oct
and my top 5 are:
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
June 18th, 2009 00:22
This is an excellent list of topics from an excellent group of coaches.
Many thanks to:
Tim Case — Presentation High School (CA)
Lydia Esslinger — Sysoset High School (NY), co-chair
Dave McGinnis — Valley High School (IA)
Dan Meyers — The Meadows School (NV)
Lowell Sharp — Golden High School (CO), co-chair
Linda Shipley — Bartlesville High School (OK)
Aaron Timmons — Greenhill School (TX)
Joe Vaughan — Scarsdale High School (NY)
Jim Wakefield — Fort Lauderdale High SchooL (FL)
Posted from: 76.211.232.244
June 18th, 2009 01:31
Joe and Anthony – I figured as much. Knowing how dedicated the people on the committee are, it seemed a good bet that the term chosen was arrived at after a lot of hard thinking and via the literature base (and after some thinking, I can’t come up with any better wording for the topic, so I commend them for doing the best they could). I’m just worried that their hard work might get short circuited, which is why I’d prefer many of the other great topics they wrote to this potentially troubling one. If the topic gets chosen, I hope that I’m wrong and people actually debate the issue!
Posted from: 72.147.90.163
June 18th, 2009 11:36
This is a great topic list. I’m glad to see the return of some good previous topics that were never selected (jury nullification, pharmaceutical patents).
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
June 18th, 2009 11:50
love the list. Anyone else think Sanctions would make a good jan/feb topic?
Posted from: 97.65.12.48
June 18th, 2009 13:20
No.
Posted from: 12.40.220.253
June 18th, 2009 13:31
I like the resolution “A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.”
It’s most probable also.
Posted from: 207.40.19.131
June 18th, 2009 15:12
The housing topic is also a personal favorite of mine.
Posted from: 68.199.21.95
June 18th, 2009 15:23
1) jnull
2) nukes
3) sanctions
4) pharma
5) debt
6) housing
7) immun
8) internet
9) DNA
10) gov crimes
Posted from: 70.179.117.152
June 18th, 2009 16:47
anyone have a list of the potential sept-oct topics? ty
Posted from: 24.90.84.59
June 18th, 2009 16:57
Re: #20
Possible Sept-Oct ’09 Resolutions:
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
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.
R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
Posted from: 98.198.229.111
June 19th, 2009 15:13
TORTURE!
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
June 19th, 2009 23:43
0/10 possible comparative resolutions. these topics are fine for what they are, but come on.
Posted from: 71.169.22.241
June 21st, 2009 20:40
Wait, so on the nukes topic non-state actors possesing nukes would not be outside the aff ground right?
Posted from: 68.117.51.188
June 21st, 2009 21:10
Devin, I would agree with that. If state possession–> non-state possession (through theft or selling materials or something) I think that would be solidly aff ground.
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
June 22nd, 2009 02:07
it’d be a little weird to revisit nukes so soon, but i would not be opposed. jury null, broke countries and sanctions are also awesome. here’s to hoping those are the 4.
oh and is anyone else pulling for torture or indigenous people for sept oct?
Posted from: 128.255.233.25
June 22nd, 2009 11:52
Smitty – Did you submit any comparative resolutions for consideration? We would be happy to consider some. Submit those wonderful ideas you have to nfl@nflonline.org. We appreciate your forthcoming contributions.
DM
Posted from: 69.230.61.108
June 23rd, 2009 23:04
Just wondering: How would my coach be able to vote for the topics online (like the ballot states) or do we just mail it in?
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
June 24th, 2009 00:38
one issue for people to consider, what’s the time frame of the nukes topic…by that I mean, do people have to debate the status quo, where the nuclear genie is out of the bottle (thus leading itself to a proliferation debate)…so this could mean a debate on disarmament, or a debate on new states getting their hands on nukes…
…or can someone stick solely to the action of having a nuke itself whether or not possession is immoral?
Those all seem like separate resolutions to me, so I wonder what people think.
Posted from: 67.150.56.150
June 25th, 2009 14:36
Great list; I’m particularly interested in the public health topics.
It would be great if we could have some well-researched, non-dueling stats debates on how conceptions of health care shape policy, not just on how policy shapes health care.
Posted from: 199.20.23.2
July 7th, 2009 15:37
@Dylan, are they still gonna do R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government?
Posted from: 169.232.116.81
August 15th, 2009 06:56
Since there is nowhere else to put this…NFLonline.org has released the Sept-Oct resolution:
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
http://www.nflonline.org/StudentResources/Topics
Posted from: 75.36.182.143
October 21st, 2009 00:55
i love the topic : states ought not to have nuclear weapons.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
i think we should debate on this for state quals would be fun:P
Posted from: 67.155.105.62
October 21st, 2009 13:32
mona your dumb. state quals? hahahha
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
November 14th, 2009 00:46
for which topic did people seem to be voting for jan/feb?