Attention All Students Who Are Returning to Debate Next Year

All current 6th and 7th graders wishing to be in debate in 2012-2013 need to submit a brief essay explaining the following:

1. What have you gained from debate (the class or the club)
2. How you see yourself on this team next year (a beginner, is Nationals a goal for you, etc.)
3. What you have to offer the team (not just debate/speech skills, but character too)
4. Would you rather be in an interp. or debate class?

These can be handwritten or typed but I need them by April 13 April 30 (new date!).  Completing this short essay lets me know that your committed to debate and helps me know what your goals are for next year.  Thanks!

The Primaries, The Debates, and Why I'm Sometimes a Lousy Teacher

Quite a few students have asked me if I've been keeping up with the Republican debates and the Primary Season.  One of my shortcomings as a debate teacher (I have many, don't worry) is my lack of patience for Presidential debates and Primary elections.  I'm not inspired by any of the guys still in the race, but I can sum up the primaries and debates (past and future) for you like this:

Ever since Obama came into office, Republicans and his critics have worked on comparing him to Jimmy Carter and to make that analogy true, Obama has to lose his re-election bid to a Republican who embodies Ronald Reagan, who Republicans revere as demigod.  There's only one problem: Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Romney are not Ronald Reagan.  This isn't like a sports team who instead of netting one big superstar decides to acquire the aggregate of that star in several players.  You can only pick one person to run against Obama, and as bruised as Obama is over the economy, there has yet to be a Republican candidate who has unified the base, the moderates and the independent voters in the way that Reagan did in 1980.

Newt Gingrich is perceived as a hypocrite; a man who runs as a conservative yet has a history of cheating on his wife, especially as he was one of the main critics of Bill Clinton when he was President (Gingrich was Speaker of the House during Clinton's presidency).  Rick Santorum is popular with Evangelicals, basically picking up the voters that Rick Perry left behind, but doesn't appeal to the average voter because of his staunchly conservative views on issues like gay marriage and contraception and other things most people wish politicians left alone.  Mitt Romney stands as the typical Republican businessman.  Except that he's also Mormon.  The conservatives who like Santorum see Romney as too liberal, but Romney is probably the most moderate and most appealing to moderates because he's proven he can compromise on issues (as governor of Massachusetts he instituted universal health-care.)  And then there's Ron Paul, the man who hasn't won a single primary yet is still hanging around because of a loyal group of supporters who like him because he supports fewer restrictions on marijuana use.

So forgive me if I seem cynical, but if Republicans want to keep comparing Obama to Carter in the hopes that he will be a one term president, they need a dynamic candidate to take him down.  Plus Obama has more charisma than Carter and the support of Hollywood so unless he commits some horrendous act like shooting an endangered rhino in the face, and Republicans can find a Reagan-esque candidate, all of these primaries and debates will be a nice distraction until President Obama is reelected this November.  This will be good news for some and disappointing news for others.  But for some out there it was meant to be, as Obama's reelection will be the beginning of the end as the world ends 12/12/12.

If you do interp...

So this blog has been primarily devoted to debaters but I'd like to offer some help to those who do interp.  I've mentioned this to a couple of students, but anyone who does interp., specifically prose, dramatic or duet acting, should take note:

I was reminded while watching The Oscars (which I totally disapprove of) that the category of Best Adapted Screenplay is one that interp'ers should pay special attention to.  This is a category that honors screenplays which were adapted from some piece of fiction or non-fiction.  Example: "The Help" was adapted from a book of the same title.  One of the biggest problems interp'ers face is cutting pieces, but the advantage of taking pieces from this category is that they are basically already cut since they've been adapted and cut into scenes for a movie.  Here is where you can find a list of nominees and winners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Writing_(Adapted_Screenplay)

Some of these are books you've probably heard of.  If you see a book or play that you're interested in you'll want to get it and then find a cutting for your piece.  Consider what the screenwriters found important, but know that sometimes they leave important things out.  The final decision on what to keep and cut is ultimately yours and that is what will make your performance unique and not a mere copy of the movie.  Happy reading and good luck!

Why Is Gas So Freakin' Expensive?

Well, here's why...

http://consumerist.com/2007/05/why-is-gas-so-freakin-expensive.html

Mar./Apr. LD Topic Analysis

Before I start catching grief from the LD'ers for not giving them any attention, I'll offer my pedestrian opinion on this month's topic:

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

You would have to assume that the death of Osama bin Laden last spring was the impetus for this resolution being put on the ballot last year, but in reading about this topic I've come across some interesting and important facts:
1. Up until 9/11, the U.S., along with the rest of the world, condemned the tactic of targeted killing.
2. Israel was the one exception, using targeted killing (or assassination) as a way of protecting their country from Hamas.
3. Since 9/11, the U.S. has relaxed its targeted killing policy (obviously) in order to effectively wage war on terror.

What is targeted killing?
One issue up for debate is whether or not targeted killing is synonymous with assassination.  "Assassination" carries a negative connotation, after all a few of our Presidents were assassinated.  The distinction is made in two ways: 1. Targeted killing is condoned by a govt. whereas assassinations are often carried out by crazy gunmen.  2. Targeted killing in the context of this topic is used as a foreign policy tool.


Strategy for the Affirmative
The affirmative in this debate needs to frame this debate around the war on terror.  As it's been discussed and debated over many times before, the war on terror is not a traditional war, therefore traditional methods are useless.  Targeted killing does have a place in fighting the war on terror and fits the criteria as a foreign policy tool (as long as we're not talking about domestic terrorism).  Values for the affirmative could be safety or justice.  If we use Osama bin Laden (OBL) as the prime example, then we can say the world is safer now that he is gone.  Of course that's up for debate.  His death has likely inspired many jihadists, but the goal of targeted killing as a foreign policy tool is to weaken not just those who pose a danger to any given country, but those who pose a danger to the international community.

Whichever value you choose for the affirmative, one possible criteria is Just-War Theory.  To use it in this debate goes something like this.  In a war, one soldier can kill another because both are agents acting at the behest of their respective states.  Civil laws don't apply to them and you can't arrest one for murdering the other.  Targeted killing, according to the affirmative, should not be treated or viewed any differently.  The whole idea of targeted killing is to avoid civilian deaths and collateral damage.  The target in most cases is someone who has entered into to the rules of engagement.  While skeptics might wonder if the death off OBL puts us on a slippery slope towards killing anyone we see as a threat, let's remember that OBL made himself a target long before 9/11/01.  So Just War Theory should be a good starting point for most affirmative cases.

Strategies for the Negative
The strategies for the negative on this topic would be similar to the arguments one might make against capital punishment.  In both scenarios, you have a state deciding that death is the appropriate consequence for a person who has most likely caused the death of many.  In other words, you could reword this "targeted killing" resolution to be "Resolved: (insert name of genocidal maniac here) should receive the death penalty."  So imagine that you are a public defender assigned to defend OBL.  To make it more fair, the trial is taking place in the ICC in The Hague.  On a side note, he seemed like the kind of guy who would rant and rave so as his lawyer you would have to try and shut him up.  Anyway, you have a few options as the negative.  First, you can try the "slippery slope" argument that I mentioned earlier.  In this argument, you will criticize targeted killings by claiming that the criteria for who should be killed are too subjective and can be applied to too many individuals.  I'm not saying this is your best argument, it's just one option you have.  Second, you can argue that targeted killing is a fancy word for state-sponsored murder and that if your country is developed enough to spell foreign policy, they should have something better to resort to than murder.  Let's call this the "taking the moral high ground" argument.  Your last option is to argue that all life is important, even the lives of people like OBL.

The negative could share the affirmative values of justice or morality.  One value that I feel is unique to the negative is due process.  You could even value life, which might be tricky because the object of the targeted killing most likely didn't value life, but that's where your "moral high ground" argument could come in handy.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is not  my milieu.  But hopefully some of you will find this useful.  But be warned: The more helpful you found this, the less you know about LD.

April PF

Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.

So your last PF topic of the year before nationals is a health/science topic, much like last year's organ donation topic.  In searching for a current event that spawned this topic, the only thing I could find was that there was a minor measles outbreak after the Superbowl in Indiana.  Fourteen cases were confirmed, but thirteen of those said they had declined the measles vaccine, which is what makes it rather significant.  The debate over mandated vaccines isn't new, but quite a few states have provisions that allow parents to opt-out of vaccines for religious reasons (Texas is one).   Google it and you'll find which states are currently debating legislation on it.

This debate boils down to parents choice vs. public health.  Unfortunately, the way this topic is presented will make the debate tricky.

All debate topics can be classified as one of three types: Propositions of policy, propositions of value and propositions of fact.  Most PF topics are propositions of policy (birthright citizenship, direct popular vote, etc.)  Very few are propositions of value.  Lincoln-Douglas is exclusively a debate over values.  This particular topic is presented as a proposition of fact: " _____A_____   is    ______B_____."  The key word in there is "is," as in "Dr. Conrad Murray is guilty."  So the job of the Pro is to present evidence to prove that A is indeed B, in this case that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.  The Pro might go about this by setting certain criteria to show how it's justified; that not mandating it would result in any number of injustices.  The Pro will also want to want to make some pre-emptive strikes against the Con by showing some misconceptions people have about vaccines.  Another unique aspect of this resolution is that the Pro will be defending the status quo.  The bottom line for the Pro is the promotion of public safety.

The job of the Con is to champion parents rights/individual choice; to show that state mandated anything is an intrusion of the government into the lives of citizens.  Another tactic for the Con is to show that when there are negative side effects of vaccinations (which is a separate debate altogether) the state must be culpable, since they mandated it in the first place.  The link between autism and vaccines is hotly contested between the parents of children with autism who believe there is a link and doctors who cite studies that show there is no link.  What does exist is a lot of hysteria and paranoia.  Your job as Con is not to settle that debate, but to argue that a parent should have the right to choose.

I wasn't very gung ho about this resolution at first, but the more I read about it the more the two sides emerged and the more I grew to like it.  Good luck!

Oak Ridge Schedule

SATURDAY, MARCH 31

6:10 a.m. – Arrive at Lanier Middle School

6:30 a.m. -               Leave Lanier Middle School

8:00 - 9:30               Prelims Section A

10:00                       Extemp. Draw

10:30                       Extemp (if in debate, speak first then go to debate round)         

9:30  - 11:00            Prelims Section B (if in extemp must perform first in Section B)        

11:00                       Debate Rnd 1   

12:00                       Debate Rnd 2  AND Prelims Section D 

1:00                         Debate Rnd 3  AND Semis Section A

2:00                         Extemp Draw AND Semis Section B (go to draw first then section B)

2:30                         Semis in Extemp

3:30                         Debate Quarters  AND Finals Section A  AND Semis Section D

4:30                         Debate Semis       AND Finals Section B

5:30                         Debate Finals      AND Finals Section D  

6:30                         Extemp Draw

7:00                         Finals Secton E

ASAP                     Awards ceremony in the auditorium

10:00 p.m.               Return to Lanier Middle School

March PF Topic

Resolved: The U.S. should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

The BBC website has a great timeline of events showing the various flashpoints of tension between the U.S. and Pakistan over the past year, starting with the Raymond Davis case and culminating with NATO bombing raid that ended 2011.  It's also important to note that recently wikipedia released Stratfor documents suggest that Pakistani intelligence officials were aware of Osama bin Laden's presence in Pakistan up until the time of his death.

What "assistance" are we giving them?
Here are a couple of articles that breakdown what the U.S. has given to Pakistan over the past decade:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/11/did-pakistan/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan

Why would we "suspend" our assistance?
There are some very practical reasons for withdrawing our support.  For practical reasons, we can easily point to our stagnant economy.  The U.S. has been taking stock of all of it's foreign expenditures and assessing whether or not they continue to offer unconditional assistance to struggling nations.  To a certain extent, practicality also dictates that it's foolish to offer aid to countries when they are unable or, as it appears in Pakistan's case, are unwilling to to return the favor.

Dealing with 'why' would we want to discontinue aiding Pakistan helps us get to what's at the heart of this debate which is why we should suspend assistance to Pakistan.  As debaters, we often equate should with a moral obligation; that seeing the word 'should' suddenly thrusts us into a debate about the morality of an issue.  There are some good reasons why we should withdraw our assistance to Pakistan.  Let's put these under the category of moral reasons.

The bulk of our aid is military aid.  While there is some humanitarian aid going to Pakistan, the resolution states "all assistance" would be stopped.  If we were to stop sending military aid to Pakistan, a couple of arguments exist on moral grounds.  1. Less military aid in an unstable government is a good thing.  You don't give weapons to societies when there is a high likelihood of those weapons winding up in the wrong hands and causing harm to innocent people.  2. By continuing to send humanitarian aid, we're just putting a band-aid on a bigger problem.  One way to think of it is to think of this in the context of someone with an addiction.  By giving aid to a country that ultimately won't benefit from it, nor will it fix the bigger problems there we aren't actually helping them, anymore than if you were to give some change to a vagrant on the street who was going to just spend it on alcohol, drugs, etc.  Your assistance only enables them to make it to another day; it's a short term solution.  For a better example of how problematic this is, see most countries in Africa.  3. One final reason that fits our moral framework is that suspending our aid at this juncture would be a punitive measure, as if to say, "Pakistan, you've been bad, therefore this is your punishment."  Foreign aid is often used as a foreign policy tool the same way parents use rewards and teachers use stickers.  However, in Pakistan's case they didn't track mud in the house or forget to turn in homework, they've been allowing terrorism to find sanctuary in their country.

When weighing the practicality vs. morality on Pro, I personally believe the practicality bears out.  It's easier to argue that it just doesn't make sense to keep sending assistance to Pakistan.  It defies logic and reasoning to continue doing so, etc.

Hopefully, I've given you a place to start for Pro.  Now let's move on to Con using the same framework of practicality vs. morality.


Why we should not suspend our assistance (protecting the status quo)
Instead of calling it practical, I'm going to borrow an LD term and call it Utilitarian. For starters, I want to point out the effectiveness of cutting a nation off.  In 1962 the U.S. imposed a trade embargo on Cuba, in the hopes that the loss of U.S. business would cause the newly Communist island nation to collapse.  It's been 50 years.  No change. The UN began imposing sanctions on Iraq in 1990 and continued off and on up until the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.  Lots of Iraqis starved during the sanctions, but the government wasn't toppled.  The U.N. has leveled sanctions against Iran since 2006 regarding their nuclear program.  This has only emboldened the Iranians and their lunatic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Basically if your point is to teach Pakistan a lesson, history shows us that suspending assistance is not the way to go about teaching it.

Another Utilitarian reason to keep our assistance flowing is that we need as many allies in the region as possible and giving aid gives us leverage in the relationship.  It sounds manipulative, but from a pragmatic view, we're better off with Pakistan being in our debt.  Remember the episode of The Office where Dwight decides to get everyone breakfast in return for them all 'owing him one'? (except Andy responds with a good deed and then he and Dwight continue to out-polite each other.  Those two!) 

Now for the moral reasons. Several religions, including Christianity, preach the principle of "turning the other cheek." Jesus Christ took the creed of "eye for an eye" and completely turned it around: "If someone strikes your right cheek, offer him your left one."  True, Pakistan has not been our strongest ally as of late, but that's no reason to punish them by cutting off our assistance to them.  There's also the idea that if our humanitarian aid reaches just one person, then it's worth it.  For as former Lanier debater, Kane Kenney, put it "It's good to be good."

Hopefully this is enough to get you started on some ideas for Pro and Con.  A well-balanced case on this topic will combine some factual evidence with some moral/practical evidence.  It's important to remind the judge/audience that we're talking about foreign policy and foreign policy can't just be about numbers and stats, it's about people.“Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.”- Jimmy Carter