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!
Thursday, December 20, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Corporate Welfare
Ending Corporate Welfare could fit the definition of "tax increases," since it ends tax breaks for corporations. Check out this article for more on the issue and PRO ammo.
Corporate Welfare
Corporate Welfare
Monday, November 19, 2012
Dec. PF topic analysis
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.
Taxation has been a hot partisan issue for the past few decades. It's never not been a hot issue, but it has become increasingly contentious as most Democrats advocate for higher taxes (mainly on the "wealthy") and Republicans counter with supporting government spending cuts. Let's look at an analogy that takes place at home:
Your family takes in about $100,000 a year. Something happens and for whatever reason the income drops from $100K to $75K a year. You can do one of two things: Get more income from other jobs or reduce your spending. Most families in a situation like this will start reducing their spending. They'll reduce/eliminate their spending on luxuries before cutting into more important expenses like mortgage, car-note, etc.
Our government has seen a reduction in the amount of money it has available. Fighting two wars, expanding the size government (thank Bush and Obama for that), spending money on natural disasters and other outlays will deplete the money pile pretty quickly. The government can definitely cut spending and raise taxes but this debate is about which one should the government do first.
Taxation is mostly done through personal income, so a tax increase would obviously take effect there. We have a progressive (or graduated) tax rate; the more you make the more you pay. The IRS offers tax deductions for any number of things such as children, eco-friendly purchases, etc. which reduces the amount we're taxed.
Government spending is outlined in the annual budget the President submits to Congress for approval. The bulk of the spending is in defense. There are many pie-charts and graphs depicting the government's budget where you can see where your tax dollars go.
PRO - tax increases
Your increases can go one of several ways...
Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire. This would repeal the tax cuts that Bush Jr. enacted at the beginning of his Presidency. You will want to look at letting them expire specifically for the upper-income earners. Here's a good article on the benefits of letting those tax cuts expire:
Benefits of letting tax cuts expire
There are other types of taxes that could be increased:
gas tax
soda tax - also called an excise tax
Of course any sort of tax plan you offer should argue that the U.S. economy is now strong enough to weather the increase.
CON - "taxes" are you insane?!
Raising taxes is an idea that is never received well, even less so when the economy is in the toilet. Typical Con strategy can go one of two ways: Both/neither should be prioritized or spending cuts should be prioritized. I don't think the former is really worth it, so here's how you argue for spending cuts.
8 ways to cut government spending
CATO institute proposal
cutting defense spending
This should get you started. I'll help you with showing the DISADS for both sides later on.
Taxation has been a hot partisan issue for the past few decades. It's never not been a hot issue, but it has become increasingly contentious as most Democrats advocate for higher taxes (mainly on the "wealthy") and Republicans counter with supporting government spending cuts. Let's look at an analogy that takes place at home:
Your family takes in about $100,000 a year. Something happens and for whatever reason the income drops from $100K to $75K a year. You can do one of two things: Get more income from other jobs or reduce your spending. Most families in a situation like this will start reducing their spending. They'll reduce/eliminate their spending on luxuries before cutting into more important expenses like mortgage, car-note, etc.
Our government has seen a reduction in the amount of money it has available. Fighting two wars, expanding the size government (thank Bush and Obama for that), spending money on natural disasters and other outlays will deplete the money pile pretty quickly. The government can definitely cut spending and raise taxes but this debate is about which one should the government do first.
Taxation is mostly done through personal income, so a tax increase would obviously take effect there. We have a progressive (or graduated) tax rate; the more you make the more you pay. The IRS offers tax deductions for any number of things such as children, eco-friendly purchases, etc. which reduces the amount we're taxed.
Government spending is outlined in the annual budget the President submits to Congress for approval. The bulk of the spending is in defense. There are many pie-charts and graphs depicting the government's budget where you can see where your tax dollars go.
PRO - tax increases
Your increases can go one of several ways...
Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire. This would repeal the tax cuts that Bush Jr. enacted at the beginning of his Presidency. You will want to look at letting them expire specifically for the upper-income earners. Here's a good article on the benefits of letting those tax cuts expire:
Benefits of letting tax cuts expire
There are other types of taxes that could be increased:
gas tax
soda tax - also called an excise tax
Of course any sort of tax plan you offer should argue that the U.S. economy is now strong enough to weather the increase.
CON - "taxes" are you insane?!
Raising taxes is an idea that is never received well, even less so when the economy is in the toilet. Typical Con strategy can go one of two ways: Both/neither should be prioritized or spending cuts should be prioritized. I don't think the former is really worth it, so here's how you argue for spending cuts.
8 ways to cut government spending
CATO institute proposal
cutting defense spending
This should get you started. I'll help you with showing the DISADS for both sides later on.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Westfield Results
| Extemporaneous Speaking | Lincoln-Douglas | ||
| 1st | Lekha Sunder | 1st | Stephanie Oyolu |
| 2nd | Bowen Song | 2nd | Zuhayr Ali |
| 3rd | Erin Sheena | SF's | Robert Brown |
| 4th | Tommy Hayes | SF's | Travis Craig |
| 5th | Robert Brown | ||
| 6th | John Dagley | Public Forum | |
| 1st | Vinny Misra & Hugh Hajdik | ||
| Dramatic | 2nd | Olivia Cardenas & Erin Sheena | |
| 1st | Ali Potthast | SF's | Maddie Muhlherr & Michael Hoyal |
| 4th | Maddie Van Brunt | SF's | Lyle Derden & Lekha Sunder |
| 5th | Maddie Spence | Q's | Jeong Woo Han & Bowen Song |
| Q's | Matthew Fontenot & Martin Logan | ||
| Junior Poetry | Q's | Aaron Jasso & Armon Tabibzadegan | |
| 1st | Adele Lauzon | Q's | Marcos Coronado & Miguel Covarrubias |
| 2nd | Athene DelVecchio | ||
| 5th | Ally Sun | Humorous | |
| 6th | Navya Sharma | 1st | Jeong Woo Han |
| 3rd | Nikki Goldin | ||
| Senior Poetry | 5th | Larry Zhang | |
| 1st | Michelle Tang | ||
| 2nd | Maddie Van Brunt | Oratory | |
| 3rd | Amy Yao | 1st | Mina Nam |
| 4th | Dikla Taylor | 2nd | Rukmini Kalamangalam |
| 5th | Elise Lanier | 3rd | Abby Eastman |
| 4th | Lyle Derden | ||
| TV Commercial | 6th | Michelle Tang | |
| 1st | Max Nathan | ||
| 3rd | Jeong Woo Han | Senior Prose | |
| 1st | Dikla Taylor | ||
| Readers Theatre | 2nd | Maddie Muhlherr | |
| 6th | Wayside School | 3rd | Michelle Tang |
| 4th | Elise Lanier | ||
| Duet Improv | 5th | Nikki Goldin | |
| 1st | Athene DelVecchio & Vega Shah | 6th | Amy Yao |
| 2nd | Zibi Gugala & Jeong Woo Han | ||
| Senior Duet Acting | |||
| Storytelling | 1st | Maya Waterland & Amy Yao | |
| 3rd | Stephanie Sonik | 4th | Katherine Nyquist & Ally Sun |
| 5th | Nikki Goldin & Kaitlyn Kelly | ||
| Impromptu Acting/Speaking | |||
| 1st | Lekha Sunder | Junior Duet Acting | |
| 2nd | Nikki Goldin | 8th | Nicholas Abraham & Nathan Dunbar |
| 3rd | Noah Scantlebury | ||
| 4th | William Acheampong |
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Bellaire Results
| Novice Lincoln-Douglas | Senior Impromptu | |
| Travis Craig - Double-octos | Olivia Cardenas - 3rd | |
| Stephanie Oyolu - Double-octos | ||
| Novice Prose | Novice Public Forum | |
| Nikki Goldin - 5th | Madeline Muhlherr & Vishnu Narayana | Semifinalists |
| Rukmini Kalamangalam & Mina Nam | Double-octos | |
| Novice Extemp. | ||
| Vishnu Narayana - 4th | ||
| Stephanie Oyolu - 8th | ||
| Novice Duet Acting | ||
| Novice Impromptu | Shelby Griffin & Madeline Muhlherr - 2nd | |
| Cameron Biggart - 1st | Kira Lam & Amy Yao - 3rd | |
| Zibi Gugala - 5th | Nikki Goldin & Kaitlyn Kelly - 5th | |
| Ben Teague & Maddie Van Brunt - 6th | ||
Monday, October 29, 2012
Westfield Schedule
Saturday, November 10, 2012
6:00 AM Meet at Lanier
6:15 AM Leave Lanier
7:30 AM Extemp
Draw in Black Box Theatre
8:00-9:00
AM Section
A Prelims
9:00-10:00 AM Section
B Prelims
10:00-11:30
AM Section C
Prelims; Round I Debate
11:00-11:45 Round
II Debate
11:30-12:30
PM Duet
Acting/Duo
Interp
12:00-12:45 Round
III Debate
12:30-2:00
PM
Semi-Finals A & B
2:00-3:30 PM
Semi-Finals C &D
3:00-3:45
Quarters for Debate
4:00
PM
Extemp Draw for Finals
4:30-6:00 PM Finals
A & B
6:00-7:00PM
Semis for Debate
6:00-7:30
PM
Finals C & D
7:00-7:45PM
Finals for Debate
8:00
PM AWARDS
CEREMONY!!
(Could be sooner if possible)
9:30 PM Return to Lanier
Section A Section B Section C Section D
Extemp $5 Oratory
$5 Pantomime $5 Duet Acting $10
Declamation $5 TV
Commercial $5 Storytelling
$5 Lincoln-Douglas
$10
Dramatic $5 Prose
$5 Impromptu
$5 Public Forum $15
Poetry $5 Duet
Improv $10 Humorous $5
Lip-Sync $10 Readers
Theatre $10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)