Jump to content
LA Coach

2010-2011 Potential LD Topics

Recommended Posts

Jim Menick has posted a list of resolutions which appears to be the NFL ballot for 2010-2011. I've reposted the list below, but you can head over to his blog (http://coachean.blogspot.com/2010/06/ld-festivus.html) to see his analysis. We'll have confirmation later. In the mean time, what do you think? Anything strike you right off the bat?

 

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

 

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

 

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

 

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

 

Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.

 

Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.

 

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

 

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

 

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

 

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Menick has posted a list of resolutions which appears to be the NFL ballot for 2010-2011. I've reposted the list below, but you can head over to his blog (http://coachean.blogspot.com/2010/06/ld-festivus.html) to see his analysis. We'll have confirmation later. In the mean time, what do you think? Anything strike you right off the bat?

 

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

 

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

 

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

 

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

 

Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.

 

Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.

 

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

 

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

 

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

 

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

 

First animal topic in the NFL.

 

PMFs will and deserve to be JAN/FEB

 

Human Rights will be Nats

 

uh. Corporations is the 07 JAN/FEB

 

Secular Ethics is 06 JAN/FEB

 

Ironic that we are debating seccesion in LINCOLN Douglas debate.

 

Internet Neutrality will not make it.

 

oh and septemeber will be HIPCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

 

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

 

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

 

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

 

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

 

Those are my personal favorites; all of them look incredibly fun and interesting to debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First animal topic in the NFL.

 

PMFs will and deserve to be JAN/FEB

 

Human Rights will be Nats

 

uh. Corporations is the 07 JAN/FEB

 

Secular Ethics is 06 JAN/FEB

 

Ironic that we are debating seccesion in LINCOLN Douglas debate.

 

Internet Neutrality will not make it.

 

oh and septemeber will be HIPCS.

 

lol yes september better be HIPCS.

 

And anyone else having trouble researching the human rights one? (the one VBI is using) It's kind of hard to research i think.

Edited by xxelainexx0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military

If this one comes around, my LDers are going to love me :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

They all seem decent, but I really like this topic because it goes in a very different direction from most of the typical topic territory for LD/CX/PF. I really hope to see good debates from that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this one comes around, my LDers are going to love me :D

 

 

Haha I remember posting an article o here about PMCs to use, not sure if your using it, but my mind instantly snapped back to the policy topic, so much transferable lit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol yes september better be HIPCS.

 

And anyone else having trouble researching the human rights one? (the one VBI is using) It's kind of hard to research i think.

 

 

Honestly.... Not really.

 

The one problem would be the overabundance of literature on the topic. I have about 11 Ks from Human Rights alone.

 

The topic is really good except it will most likely be Nationals so all my K work means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Menick has posted a list of resolutions which appears to be the NFL ballot for 2010-2011. I've reposted the list below, but you can head over to his blog (http://coachean.blogspot.com/2010/06/ld-festivus.html) to see his analysis. We'll have confirmation later. In the mean time, what do you think? Anything strike you right off the bat?

 

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

 

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

 

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

 

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

 

Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.

 

Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.

 

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

 

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

 

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

 

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

 

Bolded are my favorites

 

Ethics could easily slip into a religion debate, too personal and too little clash

 

"on balance" concerns me

 

Drugs could easily be too evidence-based and less value based

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bolded are my favorites

 

Ethics could easily slip into a religion debate, too personal and too little clash

 

"on balance" concerns me

 

Drugs could easily be too evidence-based and less value based

 

 

What do you mean by determining a topic by its values?

 

Also why do you want Animal Rights.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by determining a topic by its values?

 

Also why do you want Animal Rights.

 

value structure. The only LD I know is the traditional

 

I have no explanation; it seems like a timely/sophisticated issue that society seems to ignore to an extent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bolded are my favorites

 

Ethics could easily slip into a religion debate, too personal and too little clash

 

"on balance" concerns me

 

Drugs could easily be too evidence-based and less value based

I honestly wouldn't mind the kids debating religion. Yes, it is very personnal, but the research and participation in other religious ethics I think is extremely valuable. And as far as clash, I can't think of any topic that has more clash in LD than religion versus secularism, especially when you throw the legislative process in the mix. That one was actually my overall favorite.

 

"on balance" is used in crafting the resolution so that negatives don't find one small, insignificant reason that internet neutrality isn't desirable.

 

Absolutely agree on the drug topic. It is very difficult if not impossible to write a resolution on drug criminialization/treatment without it becoming an outright policy round. I'm not sure, but I also think the terms "illegal drugs" and "not of criminal justice" are perhaps contradictory. Negatives would be able to debate pure definitions that anything illegal is a matter of criminal justice as well as public health, thus if taken as a whole the resolution should be negated by definition (and forcing the clash to be about the definition of "illegal" rather than the issues).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree on the drug topic. It is very difficult if not impossible to write a resolution on drug criminialization/treatment without it becoming an outright policy round. I'm not sure, but I also think the terms "illegal drugs" and "not of criminal justice" are perhaps contradictory. Negatives would be able to debate pure definitions that anything illegal is a matter of criminal justice as well as public health, thus if taken as a whole the resolution should be negated by definition (and forcing the clash to be about the definition of "illegal" rather than the issues).

 

 

I was actually at the Mean Green Workshops this summer at the University of North Texas, and "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice" was the topic. I have to admit that many debates were based on evidence or empirical arguments. However, some people did have cases that had strong evidence, yet they focused on their framework a lot as well. Also, I hope you realize nowhere in the resolution does it say the word "treatment." I hit and heard cases that had absolutely nothing to do with treatment. I actually ran into a case that talked about how drugs are good. I know, it's absurd. That's why I easily beat it. But not every case will be about treatment, mind you. And I actually thought of having a good portion of my Aff case talking about how the resolution is always going to be sided with the Negative, but I actually ended up making my Affirmative case without it, and keeping the drugs illegal. And then I thought about putting in my case that if drugs are to stay illegal, they must be treated in the criminal justice system. However, this leaves plenty of room for Theory shells to be run against you, so it's best if you leave that argument alone. Also, on the Affirmative, nowhere in the resolution does it say that we must keep the drugs criminalized. It only says illegal. For example, texting while driving is not a felony, but is still illegal. Most, if not all, Affirmatives I hit were about decriminalizing drugs, while still keeping them illegal. While this may seem like a horrible idea, they had solid evidence from an article on Portugal, who decriminalized their drugs. I will email the article and some other drug-related articles to anybody who wants them. They have very helpful evidence in them. Also, on both the Aff and Neg sides, I heard multiple arguments about Mill's "Harm Principle." This is where we should tolerate and not interfere with any act until it hurts a 3rd party. Of course, this argument was VERY rare and hard to run on the Neg, but is useful on a "Decriminalization Affirmative." The camp was directed by Aaron Timmons, who has a huge share of power in the NFL, so I highly expect this topic to be one that is elected to be debated this year. Also, a fairly good argument that nobody besides me (or at least that I heard of) ran was that the criminal justice system is inherently racist. I found a card talking about how punishment for African Americans is different than punishment for Whites. Then I backed up with another racism card, which seemed to bewilder the judges and opponents I had. I can send it to anybody who wants it. Also, another good point to make is that the criminal justice system is erratically implemented. What do I mean by that? Well, compare the drug laws in New York and the drug laws in California. In Cali, they're making pot legal, and New York is still cracking down on anybody who looks like they might be high. And then you can go on an international level, and show that our criminal justice system is different than the criminal justice system in the Netherlands, because in the Netherlands, drugs have been decriminalized. Hopefully this has enlightened some of you who didn't go to MGW, and once again, I'll email those articles to anybody who wants them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone is sharing their camp experience fleshing out the potential topics, but it's stories like that which turn me off some of the more "relevant" resolutions (like drug treatment, PMCs, juvenile justice and net neutrality). I just can't see them debated in traditional/no-plan LD. Any value to you bring to those debates will be a bit of a stretch, and I don't see the variety of arguments that you might get out of, say, Progressive Taxation.

 

I'm okay with simple resolutions. I love the phrasing of the Animal Rights topic because it asks students to really define justice, and to figure out if it derives from the social contract or from some universal idea of fairness. At the same time, the Secular ethics topic is growing on me because it's complicated and demands something different from debaters.

 

What I'm not looking forward to is resolutions that devolve into purely utilitarian arguments. That's why there are other forms of debate. Net Neutrality is already framed as a utilitarian debate, which means it's closer to Public Forum than Lincoln-Douglas. Private Military Firms is only interesting in that context, and that means it's not really that interesting at all.

 

With that in mind, my top four are:

1) Progressive Taxation

2) Animal Rights

3) Universal Human Rights vs National Interest

4) Secular/Religious Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...