Total Pageviews

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Jan. PF Analysis

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.

Please make sure you understand how propositions of fact work before you read this.  You should read the  post a couple of posts back.  You did?  Awesome.  Let's continue.

"On balance" sometimes confuses people.  I think in all PF debates both sides concede that their opponents have some good arguments, but that OVERALL their own side is correct.  "On balance" simply makes sure you understand that you're going to HAVE to concede that your opponents arguments have some merit, but that your side OUTWEIGHS the other.  One way to think of it is that "On balance" is a synonym for "Overall."

Taking what you remember from propositions of fact, you can see that "the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" is A, "harms" is the verb, and "the election process" is B.  A solid understanding of what the Supreme Court decision entails is important.  This is pretty objective since the Supreme Court offers opinions on both sides of the issue which outline why they individually ruled how they did.  What I think is a little more elusive to define is "the election process."  What is this process?  Is it the campaigning?  Is it the mudslinging?  Is it the actual voting and does that include the information that voters receive to deliberate on who they should vote for?  Keep in mind, this debate involves federal offices, not state or local offices.

One other aspect to keep in mind is that the overwhelming support for the decision came from Republicans, with the majority of Democrats (including Barack Obama) being very critical of the decision. Just puttin' that out there...

Once you have solid definitions for "A," "harms," and "B" you can move into arguments for PRO and CON.

PRO
If the election process is as simple as people making informed decisions on how they vote, then any propaganda out there that might mislead voters will taint their decisions.  Movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2016: Obama's America are intended to sway voter opinion.  At the most, these movies should stir debate and force people to do their own research.  But few people have the time/discipline to do that and will just think "Michael Moore said..." or "The Obama movie said..." and go with that.  There's a huge difference between an ignorant electorate and a misinformed electorate and the latter is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than the former.  You want to show that the decision of the Supreme Court has and can continue to lead to a misinformed electorate, thus harming the electoral process.

Another avenue for the PRO to explore is the "equal time" issue.  As debaters, you definitely understand that both sides deserve equal time.  Rioting in your debate round would ensue if your judge screwed up your time and gave your opponents more time than they were supposed to receive (I know that's happened to some of you and you know how badly it stinks).  The same holds true for the supporters of the two political parties in the country.  One Super PAC has the resources that another doesn't and is therefore able to promote its agenda more effectively.  For more about equal time look at the first PF topic I ever tackled in my job as Lanier Debate coach: The Fairness Doctrine, Sept. 2007.

One last issue for PRO is idea that a corporation is not afforded the same rights as an individual.  When a company winds up poisoning people and they are successfully sued their penalty is to pay out settlements.  However, if an individual (through their own negligence) poisons people then they are going to jail.  The law makes a distinction between individuals and companies run by individuals.  But corporations are NOT individual citizens and therefore what rights do they have?  Do corporations have a right to free speech? What if there are films financed by corporations or non-profits with foreign ties and investments? 

CON
As much as PRO might be the majority opinion among debaters (at least that's my first impression) CON has some very good arguments to make.

First and foremost is that the decision of the court allows for more free speech.  These films, for example, don't commit slander (legal definition: slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed)  In fact they are carefully orchestrated to go just far enough in encouraging the viewer make assumptions based on the facts that are presented in a certain way.  Moore's and D'Souza's films are criticized for not being true documentaries because they are made with a political agenda in mind.  However, a LOT of Hollywood films are produced with a political/social agenda in mind.  Are all film-makers bound by Feingold-McCain?  By restricting their release are you violating their free speech, not to mention free enterprise (not that documentary filmmakers are millionaires but they still need to eat).

Another point for the CON to utilize is the fact that this decision is in line with what a lot of media is able to do.  Days before an election, it's perfectly legal for a major/minor newspaper to editorialize about who they endorse for office.  It's almost an obligation.  How can that be okay, yet non-profit groups and corporations alike would be rendered silent if the decision was reversed?  Moreover, how much more harmful are journalistic endorsements of candidates than non-profit/corporate films? 

I realize I've given 3 PRO's and 2 CON's.  Sorry to those of you concerned with quantity over quality.  I feel the CON free speech point can probably be broken down into a couple of sub-points.  And with all topics and analysis I offer - Please do your own research.


Friday, December 28, 2012

Jan. PF link to Nats 2010 PF topic

Here's the topic for January, 2013: Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.

And this was the topic for Nationals in 2010: Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberation.

One way to paraphrase the Nats 2010 topic: Partisan propaganda does harm to the democratic process.

A lot of PF topics get recycled and this, in my opinion, is one that has been recycled with the specification that we are not looking at current trends in general but specifically at CU v FEC, and the impact it has had on our electoral process (which happens to function within a democracy). 

I'm not stating that these topics are similar enough to find cases from June 2010 and run with them, BUT if you do some internet digging you can probably find some back-files from that topic that can help with the current topic.  Oh wait...I did that for you.


courtesy of Harrisburgh Debate



Thursday, December 27, 2012

Propositions of Fact

This would be helpful to read before tackling the current PF topic.  I probably should've made this available earlier when you had your November topic (Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.)

This gentleman explains Props of Fact a lot better than I can.

Proposition of Fact

Jan. PF Topic Analysis

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.

First off, it's been a while since we've seen an "On balance..." topic.   (April 2010 - Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.)  This is another proposition of fact (A has this impact on B).  I personally dislike these topics.  While we haven't had an "On balance" topic we've had A LOT of propositions of fact.  But before I go over that, let's take a quick trip through CU v FEC.

In June of 2004, controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore released a film titled Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature where freedom burns (clever, huh?)  Moore is no friend of conservatives and this film focused on President Bush's activity before, during and after the attacks even going so far as to assert that 9/11 was an inside job. (These conspiracy theorists are referred to ironically as 'truthers.')  Whatever your opinion on the matter, what was clear was that Moore's goals with the film were to influence the upcoming 2004 election between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.  It apparently didn't work.

Citizens United is a non-profit conservative advocacy group.  They protested that the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 prior to the election violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA")  This act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.  Citizens United's challenge of the film's release with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was dismissed.  So CU's response was basically "Okay.  If liberals like Michael Moore can do it, we can, too."  So they released a film in early 2008 called Hillary: The Movie to be released on DirecTV.  This film was highly critical of then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  The advertisements for the film ran before the Democratic Primary, which caused the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to claim the film violated the boundaries set by BCRA.  Citizens United appealed the decision to the Supreme Court (which by this time had been restocked with Conservative leaning President Bush picks).  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.

A constitutional attorney would be helpful at this point as I've basically summed up what Wikipedia has  to offer on the subject (don't worry - I corroborated with other sources).  If you were able to follow the two previous paragraphs then you might look at the Supreme Court decision and conclude that they sort of had to rule in favor of CU and the airing of their conservative film since the FEC had allowed Michael Moore's liberal film.  Denying CU's appeal would lead people to think there was a partisan double standard - liberals can do this but conservatives can't.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has opened the door to all sorts of "propaganda."  Consider the film 2016: Obama's America.  This was released the year of Obama's re-election campaign and argues that President Obama wants to reduce significantly the U.S.'s influence within the world while increasing the influence of nations that he believes have suffered or been held back economically or militarily due to U.S. and Western domination.  Overall, it's a very negative portrayal of the President.  I haven't seen the film so I won't comment on it, but just like Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll assume it runs with some basic facts and then gives you a very biased picture of what the filmmaker believes is the "truth."  Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision regarding CU vs. FEC, Obama supporters had little recourse but to let the film be released.  Much like Fahrenheit 9/11, it apparently had little effect on the election.

This is really just the back-story.  As Shakespeare wrote, "What is past is prologue."  In future posts I'll go over the way to go about analyzing propositions of fact and some basic PRO and CON approaches.  As with all topics, I highly recommend you do some research on your own.  I've only provided the "children's dictionary" set-up.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Oak Ridge - Winter Results

Oak Ridge, Dec. 15 - 1st Place Sweepstakes 



Extemp
Humorous
Junior Poetry
Senior Duet Acting
1st Beckett Gonzales 3rd Larry Zhang 4th Natalie Festa 3rd Maya Waterland & Amy Yao
2nd Maddie Spence





3rd Noah Scantlebury


Senior Poetry
Junior Duet Acting
4th Ethan Tran

1st Alisa Lu 2nd Sophie Cardenas & Adele Lauzon




5th Katherine Nyquist








Declamation

Junior Prose
Senior Prose
Oratory 2nd Zibi Gugala
7th Gabby Keene 7th Stephanie Sonik 3rd Maddie Spence 5th Rukmini Kalamangalam
8th Ally Sun 8th Maddie Van Brunt 5th Kaitlyn Kelly





6th Kierra Morris
Lincoln-Douglas Debate







Justus Miles - octofinalist

Storytelling





8th Alisa Lu




Public Forum Debate






1st Lekha Sunder & Lyle Derden

Extemp (Supp)
Prose (Supp)

2nd Michael Hoyal & Maddie Muehlherr
1st Robert Brown 1st Ruth Ling


Joseph Donowho & Evan Finley - Semis
3rd John Dagley




Jackson Hanna & Travis Craig - Semis
5th Stephanie Oyolu




Joseph Dowdall & Sam Frank - Quarters







Alex Hoyal & Vishnu Narayana - Quarters

Oratory (Supp)
Poetry (Supp)



7th Sophie Dunn 2nd Sara Tin-U



5th Robert Brown 3rd Stephanie Oyolu


Congressional Debate


5th Ruth Ling

1st Marcos Coronado






2nd Armon Tabibzadegan






3rd Curtis Yao






4th Bowen Song






5th Will Acheampong






6th Tomer Downing






7th Edgar Brutain

6GT 2012 Results

Here are the results of the 6th Grade Debate Tournament - December 7 & 8 at Lanier


Prose Declamation Lincoln-Douglas
Adele Lauzon - 1st Olivia Davis - 1st Rhiannon Morris - 1st
Skye Waterland - 2nd Mikhaela Lazarraga - 2nd Lucy Zhang - 2nd
Magdalena Hill - 3rd
Navya Sharma - 3rd
Sara Frank - 4th Oratory
Gracie Wehr - 5th Joseph Donowho - 1st
Erin Stauss - 6th Ethan Gibson - 2nd

Michelle Rodriguez - 3rd
Poetry

Sophie Cardenas 1st

Adele Lauzon 2nd Impromptu
Michelle Miao - 3rd Sam Frank - 1st
Sara Frank - 4th Magdalena Hill - 2nd
Luz Balderas - 5th Adele Lauzon - 3rd
Magdalena Hill - 6th Rhiannon Morris - 4th

Olivia Davis - 5th
Humorous Sara Frank - 6th
Jordan Hinrich - 1st

Emma Bradley - 2nd Extemp

Sam Frank - 1st
Storytelling Joseph Donowho - 2nd
Sophie Cardenas- 1st Joseph Dowdall - 3rd
Michelle Mut- 2nd James Wei - 4th
Hunter Henry-3rd Isaac Buks - 5th
Michelle Rodriguez- 4th Navya Sharma - 6th
Mariel Alquisina-Morales- 5th
Mikhaela Lazarraga- 6th Duet Acting

Sophie Cardenas & Adele Lauzon - 1st
Dramatic Nicole Mut & Marisa Tiscareno - 2nd
Olivia Davis - 1st Rhiannon Morris & Michelle Rodriguez - 3rd
Emma Bradley - 2nd Erin Stauss & Gracie Wehr - 4th






Public Forum Debate

Alexander Nelson-Groocock & Ben Yifrach - 1st
Sam Frank & Joseph Dowdall - 2nd
Evan Finley & Joseph Donowho - Semifinalists
Nathaniel Beal & Harry Craig - Semifinalists
Dante DelVecchio & Ethan Gibson - Quarterfinalists
Mariel Alquisira-Morales & Sabriah Al-bahish -  Quarterfinalists
Harit Pho & James Wei - Quarterfinalists
Louis Hernandez & Louis Toumajian - Quarterfinalists

Alief-Taylor Schedule



6:00 a.m.          Arrive at Lanier
6:15 a.m.          We leave Lanier
7:00-7:30           Registration
7:30 am             Extemp Draw
8:00-9:15           Section A Prelims
9:30-10:45         Section B Prelims
10:45-12:15       Section C Prelims, Round I Debate, Round II Debate
12:15-2:15         Section D Prelims, Round III Debate
2:15 pm              Extemp Draw for Semis
2:45-4:00            Semis A & B
4:00-5:15            Semis C & D, Debate Elim Round
5:15 pm              Extemp Draw for Finals
5:45-7:00            Finals A & B
7:00-8:15            Finals C & D, Debate Elim Round
ASAP                  Awards Assembly
10:00 p.m         We return to Lanier


Section A                     Section B         Section C         Section D                     Debate
Extemp $5                    Oratory $5         Duet Acting$10 Readers Theatre$10       Public Forum $12
Humorous $5                Prose $5           Dance$10         Solo/Duet Pantomime$10    Lincoln-Douglas$8
Poetry $5                      Storytelling$5    Dramatic$5       Group Lip-Sync$10
Solo Lip-sync $5           Duet Improv$10 Religious Text$5
TV Commercial $5         Impromptu $5    Vocal Solo$5


REMEMBER - PF IS USING THE TAX INCREASES V SPENDING CUTS TOPIC AND LD IS USING THE UHC TOPIC

TIME's POTY

Time Magazine announced its person of the year as President Barack Obama.  I don't have the gut level reaction of misplaced disgust that most Republicans have, nor do I have the smug pride that most Democrats have about this decision.  I do think there were worthier candidates.  But the "award" goes to the person who has had the most influence on the year, for better or for ill.

That said, here's my nomination: The Lone Gunman.

A Gallup poll shows that 42% of Americans either personally own a gun or have a family member who owns a gun.  But it's not the percentage of gun-owners who have had the influence, but the outspoken gun owners and a handful of people who have used weapons in mass shootings.  Depending on your definition of "mass shootings" there were 14 shootings this year across the country that involved multiple victims.  Here's a good Washington Post article showing the breakdown.

These tragic shootings have raised the gun control debate to a fever pitch, as a recent AP poll shows that the mass shootings that occurred throughout the year edged out election news ( poll ). Calls for gun control reform have almost out-shouted the debate over the fiscal cliff. 

There have also been a huge increase in the number of gun sales over the past month. This article explains how gun sales trend upward, driven by fears of personal safety and/or the fear that recent shootings will spur gun restrictions.

Choosing the Lone Gunman (James Holmes, Adam Lanza, et al.) as Person of the Year in no way intends to celebrate these people.  In fact, many feel that the media coverage these individuals receive only fuels the problem - makes celebrities of people who should not be celebrated.  I suppose it's only natural for people to try to understand these people in order to diagnose their motives, but it's a lost cause.  We will never truly understand what drives people to do these monstrous acts.

There was a feeling after the Columbine massacre in 1999 that we'd reached a tipping point involving guns and gun control; that this must never happen again.  But then others followed.  Virginia Tech.  Fort Hood.  And for all the rhetoric over gun control and gun rights, there is no simple answer.  Restrictions are likely to not be effective and inaction shows weakness and unconcern.  Whatever the outcome (if any), it is difficult to reflect on this year without tragedies like Aurora and Newtown coming to the forefront.  The questions we pose and the answers we want - "Why does this happen?" "What is it in our society that drives people to do this?" "Could this have been prevented with more guns?" - will not come easily.  It reminds me of the quote by French Essayist Joseph Joubert: "Better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Gollum: A case study of retribution v rehabilitation

I've been pretty Batman heavy, so let me move to another trilogy I enjoy: The Lord of the Rings.

One important question underlying the rehab v retribution debate is whether or not a bad person CAN be rehabilitated.  Those sentenced for alcohol-related crimes may have the alcoholic gene.  More violent criminals may be sociopaths, incapable of reform.  And the issue of whether or not child molesters can be truly reformed is a debate for another time and with someone more knowledgeable.  But in Tolkien's fictional character of Gollum, we see a real conflict between the desire to reform and the desire to treat people as means to an end.

A little back story on Gollum for those unfamiliar with the character...

He was once a regular person named Smeagol who had a friend who by chance found the ring.  Smeagol saw it and was captivated by it immediately.  His friend refuses to give it to him and a fight ensues, where Smeagol ends up strangling his friend to death and obtaining the ring.  The film doesn't offer specifics but what's clear is that Smeagol's life is changed forever.  As the ring has corrupted his soul, his body and appearance reflect that evil and gives him his almost-demonic-like appearance.  He also suffers from a sort of split personality.  On one side there is Smeagol, the innocent soul who just wanted a day of fishing with his good buddy.  On the other side is Gollum - who embodies the same avarice as the Dark Lord Sauron and seeks the ring at all costs, poisoning everything that is good in Smeagol.

When Frodo and his friend Sam are on their trek to take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it, they are met by Gollum.  Frodo has the opportunity to kill him, just as Bilbo did nearly 60 years earlier, but he relents and bargains with Gollum.  He spares his life in return for Gollum's guidance through Mordor.  Sam immediately protests this decision and we see that Frodo and Sam have two distinct philosophies on crime.  Frodo believes in Gollum's rehabilitation.  He even begins to refer to him as Smeagol to help him free himself from the desire for the ring.  Sam never gives him a chance.  In Sam's mind, Gollum will ALWAYS be Gollum, nothing more than a greedy, deceitful murderer.  Reform is not possible in Sam's mind.

For the most part, Smeagol's rehabilitation is successful and he jumps around in glee once he realizes he's free from the influence of the ring and Gollum.  But this victory is short-lived for circumstances cause Frodo to betray Smeagol and all the progress is undone.  By the end of the second film, Gollum has returned and devises a plan to kill Sam and Frodo.  He also learns to manipulate Frodo's trust of him in order to drive a wedge between him and Sam's friendship.

All this leads back to the question of whether or not your average convict has this struggle.  What about someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter because they were driving drunk and killed a family of five?  What about someone who broke into someone's car to steal something to feed a drug habit?  What about someone who is convicted of assault after beating his spouse?  Do these persons need more exposure to the "Frodos" of the criminal justice system - people who believe in their ability to reform?  Or is it just a waste of time and we're better off adopting Sam's attitude that people who do horrible things like this are beyond help?

Here are a couple of websites to help you through this:

There's this one

and this one


Thursday, December 20, 2012

Batman Philosophy

Most of you know that I really enjoy "The Dark Knight Rises"  I truly enjoy the whole trilogy and one reason is the philosophical/ethical/moral issues they brings up.  There's a great book on this that covers a lot of the issues raised in the comics.

Each film "Batman Begins,"(BB) "Dark Knight,"(DK) and "Dark Knight Rises" (DKR) presents a separate set of conflicts and dilemmas for Batman.  One reason I feel Batman is more relatable (in addition to his lack of superpowers) is that he is presented with circumstances that force us to ask ourselves, "What would I do in that situation?"  What I'd like to do (because the book I linked before mainly focuses on the comics) is focus on the films.  There are several philosophical issues that arise during the course of DK:

1. Should the Wayne employee be killed to save a hospital?
2. Could the Joker plead insanity?
3. Why can't just anyone in a pair of hockey pants be a vigilante?
4. How far should Batman go to extract information from the Joker that might save lives?
5. Are the lives of criminals valued LESS than the lives of ordinary citizens?
6. Should Batman take the rap for Dent's misdeeds in order to keep the criminals in jail?

There are many others - these are just a few.  And these are just the ones from DK.   DKR poses questions about martial law, class warfare and personal accountability (why does Bruce Wayne even bother returning?) to name a few.

I'll try to pick one issue per post.  Please feel free to offer your input.  Great thinkers are great debaters and even though they're moves, they give you lots to think about.

Jan./Feb. LD analysis

So I'm re-watching "The Dark Knight" (the one with the Joker).  And it got me thinking about the LD topic:

Is the Joker better served by retribution or rehabilitation?  Let's narrow the body of the Joker's work to just the film since there is SO MUCH if we drag the comics into this (the murder of Robin, murder Barbara Gordon, etc.)

For starters we know the Joker isn't 'playing with a full deck.'  This leads us to the question of whether or not he's even able to be rehabilitated.  The Joker is clearly a sociopath but there are many sociopaths locked up in our criminal justice system.  Can these people be rehabilitated if they're just not right in the head?  If it's not even possible to rehabilitate someone like the Joker, or James Holmes, or Adam Lanza (if he was alive) then why even consider it?  Why consider rehabilitation at all?

Let's consider this hypothetical: The Joker is caught and sent to Arkham Asylum (and let's hope assume Dr. Jonathan Crane ISN'T his psychiatrist).  First, why even send him to Arkham?  He's responsible for the deaths of several people in the film.  Anyone who is a proponent of capital punishment would say 'execute him.'  Clearly society is better off without him.  Retribution in his case dictates we give him the death penalty or at least consecutive life sentences.  This accomplishes two things: 1. Giving justice to the families of the victims (the Joker's life sentences are essentially death sentences since he'll likely die in prison) and 2. It keeps him off the streets.

But let's say the justice system decides to rehabilitate the Joker.  Through a combination of medications and therapy the Joker is somehow "healed" of his desire to inflict harm on the citizens of Gotham.  There are a couple of questions that arise from this, provided the rehabilitation is "successful."  1. Is the effort to rehabilitate justified (whether its successful or not?)  2. Does successful rehabilitation mean that he should be freed? 

The first question: The effort to rehabilitate.  The costs of feeding/housing/medicating criminals has been well documented and the data gets skewed.  Depending on how you break it down it can either look very cheap or appear very expensive.  Rehabilitation is probably going to be more expensive, once you consider the manpower (psychiatrists, therapists, parole officers, etc.) and it's not a guarantee.  In the Joker's case "some men just want to watch the world burn" - Alfred.  He just might be a lost cause.  But what about a more realistic case involving someone with an abusive upbringing?  Someone whom some might say is more a product of his/her environment.  This doesn't excuse their actions, BUT if you can undo the damage done to them you might be able to give them a clean slate; a fresh opportunity to restart their life.  But for some criminals (like the Joker) you'll wind up expending the resource and getting no results.  And after months/years of attempts, the rehab will be pointless and the question will be - "Were we doing the right thing?  Was it just?"

The second question gets even more dicey.  Let's say the criminal justice system (in this case therapists, psychiatrists and the like) are successful.  Let's say the Joker after months/years proves to be a changed man.  A better example here might be from the Simpsons in Sideshow Bob.  Just about each Sideshow Bob episode begins with him being let out, often on the promise of rehabilitation.  And in at least one episode, his rehab seems to have worked.  He's helping Rev. Lovejoy in the prison chapel and his behavior is impeccable.  The only reason he returns to jail at the end of the episode is because he is set up by his brother, Cecil.  Should Bob be released?  Compared to the Joker, Sideshow Bob is Pat Robertson.  Bob hasn't killed anyone, he's just attempted to several times.  If his rehab has been assumed to be successful, then should he be freed?  Clearly, the Simpson family would object (maybe not Lisa) and would claim that this was an injustice.  But Bob has done his time.  What's more, having him OUT of jail allows him to be a productive member of society and reduces the overall cost of caring for the rest of the inmates who are lost causes (like the Joker).

These are issues to consider when constructing points for this case.  With every LD topic, it's important to think through questions like this to refine your points and plan rebuttals.  Sloppy case writing would skip these exercises and just start throwing values/value-criteria around to see what sticks.  Do the homework, folks.

"We may have we may have fallen into the intellectual deep end here. And if you try to grab on to me, we'll both drown." - Tracy Jordan to Kenneth, 30 Rock

Jan./Feb. LD topic

Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

Several things about this topic:

1. First, it's important to think about the OVERALL impact of rehab vs. retaliation.  Clearly in drug related cases (possession, use, etc.) it's easy to argue rehab vs. retribution.  But what about other types of crimes - crimes that aren't victimless crimes?  Robbery, rape, murder?  These are clearly crimes that involve a victim and the question of how the criminal justice system should approach these criminals becomes more complicated.

2. What is justice?  Is the goal of justice to right wrongs or ensure a safer society?  The easy answer is both and that righting wrongs by imprisonment (retribution) does make things safer.  But can the criminal justice system be an effective deterrent against crime if it's more focused on rehab than retaliation?  Is the criminal justice system which right now prioritizes retribution (hence the wording of the resolution) being undermined by that position?

3. Look at the recidivism rate (the rate at which criminals released from prison commit crimes and return - they become career criminals).  Is retribution really the best way to address that?  This goes back to the  deterrence issue.  If the focus was to rehabilitate these criminals (and rehab entails helping these folks obtain jobs and become functional members of society so that a life of crime becomes less lucrative) would the recidivism rate be reduced?

These are just a few questions to be parsed before jumping into value/value criterion pairings.  This is a great topic and should spur some good debates.  Good luck!

Jan. PF Topic

It's been out for a while. 

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.

This is a good place to get started. Plus it has a Stephen Colbert video.