Total Pageviews

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

LD Post - Animal Rights

Over the past year I've been accused of being negligent of the emotional needs of LD'ers on the team.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: My mind was not made for LD.  My intellectual bluffing only carries me so far.  Those of you who are actually in the trenches debating these topics possess far more mental fortitude than I will ever have.  So if I've neglected you, it's for fear that I'll say something that will actually do more harm than good.  Sergio Infante said it best: "Mr. Hill, you can teach the children's encyclopedia version of LD."  It was harsh but he couldn't have been more accurate.  All that said, here are my thoughts on your current topic...

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Before you engage in a full on debate it's important to ask a couple of questions:
Do animals have rights?  If so, where do they come from and who enforces them?
If animals don't have rights then we can probably sleep well at night, knowing that no great injustice is being done as we go right along caging them and breeding them for our consumption and rationalizing it all in the name that it's just as God intended and/or it's the natural order of things; we are the dominant species.  But if you were to say that animals do have rights, then we are quickly wading into some great ethical morass.  First, if they have rights, where do they come from?  Our rights seem to be basic; what we would call, for lack of a better word, "human."  The right to justice is a human right, regardless of what country you live in or what race you are or what gender you are or what team you root for.  And if we see injustice being visited upon another person or many persons, we are moved to do something about it.  So, if we were to see an animal being treated unjustly, let's say being abused, we would do everything we could to save it.  Our society does this fairly well for certain animals.  We all did a great job of vilifying Michael Vick for what he did to his dogs, and rightfully so.  It was a truly horrific act that unfortunately was only in the spotlight because someone famous was caught doing it.  But we draw a very fine line of distinction between that and what the workers at the Tyson chicken plant to do chickens on a daily basis.  Why?  What makes dogs any more special than chickens?  Well, the easy answer is that dogs are cute and cuddly and have a utilitarian purpose in offering companionship or being guard dogs (in some cases) and are more valuable alive than chickens, who serve a much better purpose being dead; cooked and prepared for consumption. 

The job for the AFF in this debate is to show that the utilitarian purpose should be overlooked; that the chicken is just as important as the dog.  Perhaps the dog, who the owner thinks s/he is taking care of so well, really doesn't want to kept in a house and would rather roam the streets, free to live in its own state of natu,re.  I would think that the AFF should not be too quick to latch on to Justice as its value.  You are trying to prove that within the scope of Justice, you must include animal rights, and those rights have to include the possibility that certain animals which we enjoy eating don't want to be eaten, that certain animals which we've domesticated don't want to be pets, and that certain animals which we've placed in captivity in zoos don't want to be locked up.  The key question is what is it about animal rights that would indicate that an injustice is being done?  Think of it in geometric proof terms:

1. Prove that animals have rights
2. Prove that those rights are being infringed upon (injustice)
3. Prove that in order to be just we must recognize those rights as the agents of justice

Using the LD language of Value, Value Criterion, and Contentions all you have to do as the AFF is address those issues above.  Proving that animals are being treated unjustly must be shown with a criterion just like you would use for people, but first you have to prove that animals and people are on the same level and that is the crux of this debate.

So, I've given you the children's encyclopedia version of the topic analysis.  You can go on to decorabilia or consult an alumnus for more information.  If you google contractualism animal rights you will get some helpful texts.  Good luck and happy researching!


Monday, August 29, 2011

Fall Congress Legislation

You can find the fall legislation for congress at the Texas Forensic League's (TFA) website.
http://www.txfa.org/congress.asp


Bellaire Novice Extravaganza, Sept. 16 & 17

The Bellaire Novice Extravaganza (BNE) is quickly approaching.  The weekend where I will at some point inevitably find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up having to judge a round of CX.  But for you guys it should be a fun weekend of getting back into the swing of things, at least debate-wise.

You can enter PF, LD, CX, Congress or extemp.  The only cross-entering you can do is in congress and extemp. 

Tournament Schedule           

Friday, September 16, 2011            Saturday, September 17, 2011
                                                               CX, LD, PF
CX, LD, PF                                            8:00        Round 4
4:00        Round 1                                   9:45        Round 5
5:30        Round 2                                  11:30       Round 6
7:15        Round 3                                   1:15        Round 7
                                                              3:00        Round 8
                                                             ASAP     Awards (5:30 p.m. in cafeteria)
Congress/Extemp                                                Congress/Extemp
4:00-5:30     Session 1 Congress       9:00-10:30     Session 3 Congress
5:30-6:30     Extemp Round 1           10:30-11:30   Extemp Round 3
6:30-8:00     Session 2 Congress       12:30-2:00     Session 4 Congress
8:00-9:00     Extemp Round 2            2:00-3:00       Extemp Round 4

PF - Sept. Topic - Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

LD - Sept./Oct. Topic - Resolved - Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

CX - 2011-2012 Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the earth's mesosphere.

Extemp. (Students will prepare for the following topics.  Their speaker number in each section will determine which topic they will speak on.  There will be no draw.)


1.  Have the Obama administration represented the best interest of the United States in its response to the Arab Spring?

2.  Will the bipartisan “Super Committee” strike a deal that is good for the American economy?

3.  Is Standard and Poor’s downgrade of America’s credit status justified?

4.  Should the United States take a more active role in Somalia?

5.  Did David Cameron respond appropriately to the recent riots Great Britain?

6.  Can Rick Perry win the Republican nomination?

Congress
The following bills will be used in each session:

Session 1 4:00-5:30pm             Session 2  6:30-8:00pm             Session 3  9:00-10:30am        Session 4  12:30-2:00pm
02  Rare Earth Minerals           06  Drug Courts                       12 Free Trade                          21  Bank Bailouts
03  Hybrids                                08 Antibiotics in Meat           13 Abandon Biofuels            25  Private Security Forces
04  Federal Sales Tax               09 Pakistan                               16 Felon Disenfranchisement 27  War Powers Act
05 Stem Cells                             10 Felon Organ Donors         17  F-22                                 28  Cuban Embargo
                                                    11 Yemen                                  18 Cyberdefense                 30  Nuclear Power

WE WILL HAVE A BUS TAKING US FROM LANIER TO BELLAIRE ON FRIDAY
STUDENTS WILL NEED TO BE PICKED UP AT BELLAIRE FRIDAY NIGHT AND STUDENTS WILL NEED TO BE DROPPED OFF AND PICKED UP ON SATURDAY

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Sept. PF Topic Analysis


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 easy.  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 the 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)

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Sept. PF Topic Analysis

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 environmentThe 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)