Since it's the beginning of the year, I'll include a brief review. There are 3 types of debate topics: Policy, value, and fact. Experienced debaters know that CX debate deals exclusively with policy and LD is reserved for value. PF debate is not required to adhere to any topic type, but the majority of topics deal with policy. This topic is tricky. At first glance it seems an easy policy topic. Benefits of A outweigh the harms to B. You can debate many topics in this model. The benefits of oil drilling outweigh the harms to the environment. The benefits of legalized gambling outweigh the harms to society. In all cases you are assessing a policy's worth. You are also admitting that it does inflict some harm. So in the debates you will have on the current topic regarding post-9/11 security measures, you are starting from a point of two given circumstances: 1. These measures have some benefits, and 2. These measures are doing some harm. It might be best to picture a set of scales with benefits on one side and harms on the other and to start the debate these scales are even.
In picking the resolution apart you first need to establish what the post-9/11 security measures are. Your mind might immediately jump to the airport. Enhanced pat-downs, full body scanners, the 3oz. liquid rule. These are practices and procedures that were not in place before 9/11/01. Don't limit yourself to just the airport. Think beyond the terminal; think "Patriot Act." In the weeks that followed the attacks, our panicked nation and government hastily passed legislation that gave the government broad power in terms of what it could do in the name of fighting terror. These powers included warrant-less surveillance, taping of phone conversations, detainment of terror suspects without due process, etc. Once you have a list of these measures, you have to make sure that they are measures that pose a harm to "personal freedom" as per the resolution. This is a very important criterion. Take the security measure of cargo searches at port of entry. That's probably not a measure that impacts your personal freedom. You might, if you are just that awesome at linking arguments, be able to prove that the port security measures are causing shipping delays, thus preventing you from receiving those made-in-China Nike shoes you desperately need for your life to be complete, therefore they ARE harming your personal freedom and outweighing the benefit. But your judge would have to be willing to go there with you.
We're not done yet, though. Once you've identified the relevant security measures, you then are only at the point where you are "putting them on the scales." The debate will be over how those scales will be tipped. Remember, we're conceding that there are harms. To win, you must do one of the following.
IF YOU ARE PRO...
Let's not kid ourselves: Pro is tough on this topic. The conventional wisdom is against you. The Con (if they're cunning) will paint you as the champion of pat-downs and make you sound like you're defending smarmy TSA agents. But you as the Pro have one big benefit on your side: There hasn't been another 9/11 on U.S. soil. You might think, so what? That event was so huge, so traumatic that to think there would be another like it is inconceivable. Really? Let's ask London. Or Madrid. Or Moscow. Or Mumbai. All four of those major cities experienced terrorist attacks in the years after 9/11. How is it that these major cities fell victim to attacks after 9/11 and yet we haven't? Could the reason be our security measures? If you are Pro you are arguing absolutely. Your job is to find the link between those safety measures and our period of relative peace.
Another route the Pro needs to explore is to down play how horrendous the harms to our personal freedom are. The pat down horror stories floating around out there are true, but how much of it is becoming urban legend? Are the criticisms being leveled at the TSA based in reality or are they exaggerated because they are politically motivated? If you are Pro, you are arguing the latter (that's the second). You're arguing that the fear is being generated by a group of people who then want to use that fear as a tool against those who are in office (Republicans vs. Democrats) Besides, how is your personal freedom really being harmed simply because you have to take your shoes off?
IF YOU ARE CON...
So Pro has their work cut out for them, but don't assume it's a cakewalk for you if you're lucky enough to be Con. You have several choices as Con:
1. Security measures aren't working, nor are they really worth the benefit (safety)
2. Security measures are not causing the benefit (safety),therefore there's nothing to weigh (Con wins)
3. Harms to personal freedom are equal to the benefit (safety)
Number 1 is fairly easy to establish. With ten years of evidence on your side and literally trillions of dollars spent on homeland security, and people still getting groped at the airport, are we really better off now than we were in 2001? Con says, "No." There's a great quote floating around out there "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." I think it was Benjamin Franklin but it's one of those that gets paraphrased and attributed to lots of people. You'll want to be clear and state that it's not that you're saying safety isn't important, it's just that when you reach the point that we have where people are too scared to travel for fear of being molested, then we're no longer really safe and the terrorists have truly won without detonating a single bomb.
Number two will hinge on your ability to find the right reports (they're out there) but common sense should suffice for now. We're looking at causation; is our safety truly the effect of these safety measures OR are they attributable to something else? If you're Con the answer is something else. Let's take the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber (CDUB). This guy from Nigeria takes an international flight heading to Detroit. Shortly before landing, passengers around him notice him doing something strange under his blanket. Something strange turns out to be him trying to make a bomb out of chemicals he smuggled in his underwear. The diligent and fast-acting passengers subdue the would-be terrorist and detain him until landing where he is promptly arrested and handed over to federal authorities. Or let's take the attempted attack in Times Square where a passerby noticed smoke emanating from a taxi. The alert civilian reported it and the bombing was averted. In both these cases it was civilians, not pat-downs or armed air marshalls, who thwarted the attacks and saved dozens if not hundreds of lives. The greatest impact 9/11 had on all of us was that it made us more aware. One story that is often overlooked in the events of that day is the story of the Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. It's believed that plane was heading to the White House or the Capital Building. But it was a group of men on that plane who took it over, wresting control of it away from the terrorists, and ultimately accidentally caused it to go down in an empty field. Regular everyday guys. As the Con, you'll want to point out that these are the type of people who keep this country safe. Not some bureaucrat with a TSA badge and a host of politically correct rules.
So, that should be enough to get you started. We only have one event in September with this topic. I know a few of you can't wait for the October to hit, but be patient. You have seven more...(ugh)
No comments:
Post a Comment