Victor on the Resolutions & VBI Session I Resolution

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — It is Victory Briefs tradition for me to share my thoughts on the topics released at NFL Nationals. This year, I think the committee did a fantastic job of coming up with an interesting slate of topics. There are more topics to be excited about than I can remember in recent history. Do not forget to vote. If you do not vote — I believe ballots are due in September — then a few random people may decide what you end up debating.

VBI SESSION I RESOLUTIONS:
The Victory Briefs curricular directors have met and decided the camp topics for VBI 2009, Session I and Week 3.

At Session I, the camp topic will be:

Resolved: it is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.

Although not mandatory, students attending camp are strongly encouraged to write cases before coming to camp. We chose this topic for a variety of reasons that we believe will enhance the camp experience. First, it’s a very interesting, literature-rich subject area that’s not often discussed. There is an international relations dimension, a economic justice dimension, and varying philosophical considerations. Second, it’s a big topic, so it is not likely to get stale. Third, it is a great opportunity for debaters to really focus on framework debates over “It is just” since so many topics tend to invite that discussion. Debaters can talk about traditional social contract notions of justice; can explore justice between countries; can discuss the conditions for a “just” contract—what makes a contract enforceable or not; and more importantly, resolve competing frameworks for justice.

The Week 3 topic will be:

Resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Similarly, students attending camp are encouraged to write cases before coming to Third Week. The focus of third week is on skills, so having advance work completed will be helpful.

THOUGHTS ON THE RESOLUTIONS

To start, there are a few topics that I hope do not end up being selected for debate. I base this on two over-arching considerations. FIRST, in choosing topics, it is critical that we differentiate the “subject matter” from the “actual wording of the resolution.” I like the subjects of all ten topics, but there are a few whose wording present problems for debate. SECOND, to prevent incoherent debate, it is important to understand how the issue is discussed/debated/addressed in real life, and whether the wording of the resolution is consistent with that, and whether that discussion is a values discussion. If not, the debates on that topic will end up incoherent—through no fault of the debaters—or un-resolvable within an LD framework.

The four I do not like are:

Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.

As a superficial matter, I’m always concerned with topics that give the AFF a dual burden—“pursue” and “disclose”—which only tends to expand negative ground. But beyond that, I don’t think this will lend itself to good debate. In real life, this is not an issue of an “obligation” or an “abstract” value principle. In real life, whether governments pursue and disclose (aka “prosecute past administrations”) depends on whether they think that would be good for society under the circumstances. People would say “yes, do it” if they think it would be good for society. They would say “no, don’t do it” if it would lead to riots and unrest and destroy society. It’s a policy/pragmatic question that depends on the circumstances. And the literature treats it that way.

Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Legally, I find this topic confusing. A patent is a property right the government grants (under certain provisos/limitations/conditions). I don’t understand what it means for a government to “violate” a patent. A government could always say in advance that the patent right will only be for a limited time and not hold during an emergency crisis. Or say that it’s subject to a compulsory license when public health concerns warrant. Are those legitimate counter-plans? Does it count as “violating” the patent if these rules are announced ahead of time and built into the definition of the patent right? The real debate in the literature is a “policy” one—whether allowing the government to create generics in times of emergency eliminates the incentive to create new medicines. Interesting—but ultimately not a values debate (because the answer is in the middle: limit the circumstances where we act; compensate appropriately for the taking; etc.—and you maximize both sides). So confusion over what it means to “violate” a patent and how the issue is actually thought of in real life makes this a less ideal topic.

Resolved: Records of an individual’s home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

This is another topic where the subject is interesting, but the wording doesn’t work. If you read it carefully, what it talks about is protecting individuals from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. The negative would have to defend the government acting UNREASONABLY!!! No legal case I know of defends the government’s right to act unreasonably. And I doubt that’s what the writers of the resolution meant to get at. Also, the issue (under the law and in most of the literature on search and seizure) isn’t whether the government should be reasonable or unreasonable, but rather what it MEANS to be reasonable. The wording misses the mark. As an aside, the more interesting issue is what came down in the press this week—where the Supreme Court of some state ruled that an internet blogger did not have the right to remain anonymous. A much more interesting internet related topic might be: “Resolved: freedom of speech ought to include the right to speak anonymously.”

Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.

I get the intent of the writers—to talk about the literature that criticizes the collection of DNA from misdemeanor offenders, etc. or to constrain the government’s creation of terrorist-suspect databases. But the wording and the focus on “any government database” makes this a bad topic to debate. First, there are so many databases that have nothing to do with criminals or citizens. We have compulsory DNA gathering for CIA operatives or foreign heads of state, for example. Does the negative just have to find one obscure database? Second, grammatically the topic is messed up. The word “compulsory” modifies “inclusion.” But in real life, what the literature is really focused on is not “inclusion” in a database, but the forced “collection” of DNA. In other words, can the negative negate by saying “I agree—we shouldn’t collect DNA from people. But if we have the DNA evidence, we should make sure we log it. So we have compulsory inclusion of the DNA we have, without compulsory gathering.” I doubt that’s what the writers had in mind, yet that’s technically what the topic says.

…..Ok. I really like the remaining six. I think we won’t go wrong with any of them. So the question becomes WHICH slot works for WHICH topic. That’s really up to personal preference, and I am interested in what other people think. Here are my two cents (which is informed by talking to other people at Nationals too). But I readily admit people may have valid points of view on which topic belongs in which slot. There’s no clear answer here.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY TOPIC

I start with the Jan/Feb slot. This is where schools really have to think about what makes sense for them. For me, I always think of it as a LONG topic where there are many Circuit tournaments and TOCs. I look for a topic that will not be boring after a few tournaments, and has a wide diversity of approaches that might work. So a big topic works.

With that paradigm in mind, I think three topics readily lend themselves to consideration: HIGHLY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, and NUKES. I end up favoring HIGHLY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES for three reasons: (1) I think it’s a broader topic with lots of dimensions—philosophical, pragmatic, economic, international relations, North-South scenarios, social contract, the justness of a contract, etc.; (2) We’ve done economic sanctions and nukes a lot. Redoing them tends to favor programs with a long history of debate and for people like me, gets boring; and (3) I have a bias against this particular wording of nukes. The “possession” wording was a Jan/Feb topic in the past. The debates ended up getting boring because they were reduced to a) deterrence, b) tools can’t be immoral; and c) asteroid scenarios. Again, I like all three—slightly favoring HIGHLY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES.

THE OTHER SLOTS

First, let’s focus on Mar/Apr, Nationals, and Sept/Oct (put aside Nov/Dec). I tend to think of these three slots from a particular bias. Many schools who do the March/April topic tend to be schools doing state qualifiers, state champs, or nats qualifiers before more lay judges. And Sept/Oct has to be novice friendly and parent friendly. Also, these topics tend to be shorter parts of the season. Nationals is a one-tournament topic. March/April is always rushed because it comes at the heels of Jan/Feb. So I like smaller topics, that are easily understood, and yet are interesting.

Topics that fit into this category include: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION, HOUSING, and JURY NULLIFICATION. NUKES and ECONOMIC SANCTIONS fit too, but tend to be bigger topics. (By the way, I think some people end up biased against jury nullification because they don’t understand it. It’s just civil disobedience in the jury box—whether it’s ok for the jury to disregard the law when they deliberate.)

So how do you slot them?

Well, let’s start with Sept/Oct. To me, this topic has to be good for novices AND still be interesting for many important circuit tournaments that start the year. If not easily accessible, new debaters won’t want to do debate. If too simplistic, advanced debaters complain. Out of the three, I choose HOUSING. It’s easy to understand. Yet, more advanced debaters can do interesting stuff. They can do the socialism/capitalism debate. They can do the social contract debate. But they can also take critical legal studies angles, discrimination angles, etc. It’s a bigger topic that’s potentially more robust. NUKES could fit the bill—but remember, I didn’t like deterrence, tool, and asteroid debates. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS could fit too, but I’m going to slot that for nationals.

Why ECONOMIC SANCTIONS for Nationals? Again, it’s lay friendly yet advanced/robust friendly—just like HOUSING. I put ECONOMIC SANCTIONS for Nationals, though, because I’d rather that be the one-tournament topic. As I recall debating economic sanctions in the past, it gets boring. I’d just rather debate HOUSING for longer.

Then November/December. That tends to be a really short topic, and many Circuit tournaments. Choosing big, previously done topics like ECONOMIC SANCTIONS or NUKES would favor the programs with large back-files and established programs. Historically, legal topics have done well in that slot. There is usually great legal research readily available, so people can get up to speed and advanced quickly. So I pick JURY NULLIFICATION.

That leaves me with COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION for March/April.

What’s left off? NUKES. But that’s just because I found the “possession” wording usually leading to boring debates (deterrence, asteroids, and “tool” debates).

That’s my two cents. It’s a great list, with a lot of room for differing opinions. What are your thoughts?

Victor

Popularity: 3% [?]

This entry was posted on Friday, June 19th, 2009 at 10:48 pm and is filed under Lincoln-Douglas Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.