This blog covers all things related to the 9x Champion Lanier Debate Team.
Total Pageviews
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sept./Oct. 2012 Lincoln-Douglas Topic
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of
terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to
citizens.
This topic is very weird, and I dont really know where to go with it. A few notes:
1. The resolution gives you an actor (the US) so make sure that you avoid certain abstract moral philosophies, since it is too easy (at least in highschool) to prove that States cant have moral obligations (ought.) This means that the case should be mostly pragmatic reasons for why rights are important, rights can be taken away, etc.
2. I think there will be a big hurdle to get over with the actor being the US, and that is that the resolution indicates that the terrorists are "non-citizens". The burden then for the AC is going to be pretty steep, but you can get a good advantage near the end of the case. It doesnt clarify which citizens the due process protections need to grant. It could be citizens who have committed terrorism, it could be naturalized sleeper cells. Idk, but I think the AC can gain some ground on this issue.
3. The constitution is not the end-all be-all of the moral doctrine. Thank god. The constitution, and whatever "morals" , the US responds to are not always controlled by the constitution (look at other documents that hold weight despite the supremacy clause in the constitution.) This gives leeway for some interesting arguments, but very classic ones. As far as important philosophy goes, everyone should understand the utilitarian and deontology debate, but I think it is worth mentioning communitarianism (Etzioni) and contractualism (Gauthir or Scalnon) which would be interesting provided you give good reasons for why they apply to the US or in this situation. (Contracts - the terrorists are not a part of our contracts, they do not get equal but some rights. Communitarianism - we are a global community we are all afforded X)
4. I have not researched this yet, but I will for my team, so I will make sure to pass the stuff I cut over here. From the get-go I would suggest looking up the state's monopoly on power (i think Wiki has a good intro to it) as well as the importance of this issue currently (targeted killing touched on this topic a little.)
I think this is a pretty tough first topic to debate, but I think it will provide for some interesting rounds. Make sure to avoid getting pigeon holed to absurd positions about terrorism (everyone kind of agrees that it is bad, at least for middle school debate rounds.)
This topic is very weird, and I dont really know where to go with it. A few notes:
ReplyDelete1. The resolution gives you an actor (the US) so make sure that you avoid certain abstract moral philosophies, since it is too easy (at least in highschool) to prove that States cant have moral obligations (ought.) This means that the case should be mostly pragmatic reasons for why rights are important, rights can be taken away, etc.
2. I think there will be a big hurdle to get over with the actor being the US, and that is that the resolution indicates that the terrorists are "non-citizens". The burden then for the AC is going to be pretty steep, but you can get a good advantage near the end of the case. It doesnt clarify which citizens the due process protections need to grant. It could be citizens who have committed terrorism, it could be naturalized sleeper cells. Idk, but I think the AC can gain some ground on this issue.
3. The constitution is not the end-all be-all of the moral doctrine. Thank god. The constitution, and whatever "morals" , the US responds to are not always controlled by the constitution (look at other documents that hold weight despite the supremacy clause in the constitution.) This gives leeway for some interesting arguments, but very classic ones. As far as important philosophy goes, everyone should understand the utilitarian and deontology debate, but I think it is worth mentioning communitarianism (Etzioni) and contractualism (Gauthir or Scalnon) which would be interesting provided you give good reasons for why they apply to the US or in this situation. (Contracts - the terrorists are not a part of our contracts, they do not get equal but some rights. Communitarianism - we are a global community we are all afforded X)
4. I have not researched this yet, but I will for my team, so I will make sure to pass the stuff I cut over here. From the get-go I would suggest looking up the state's monopoly on power (i think Wiki has a good intro to it) as well as the importance of this issue currently (targeted killing touched on this topic a little.)
I think this is a pretty tough first topic to debate, but I think it will provide for some interesting rounds. Make sure to avoid getting pigeon holed to absurd positions about terrorism (everyone kind of agrees that it is bad, at least for middle school debate rounds.)
I will think of more later,
Michael
Michael, thanks for this! Your input is invaluable. Good luck this year and we'll see at Bellaire!
ReplyDelete