I also found this article
Happy researching!
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Monday, November 11, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
PF Nationals Topic
Resolved: The benefits of American drone strikes against foreign targets outweigh the harms.
Read this - Skim it
Read this
and read this
Read this - Skim it
Read this
and read this
Sunday, March 3, 2013
March PF - CON
Here's an article explaining how the health care mandate is:
1. Constitutional - The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty amounts to a tax and falls within the government's taxing powers.
2. Handles the "adverse selection process" - By requiring everyone to have health insurance it broadens the consumer base.
1. Constitutional - The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty amounts to a tax and falls within the government's taxing powers.
2. Handles the "adverse selection process" - By requiring everyone to have health insurance it broadens the consumer base.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
March PF Topic
Here's an article describing the penalties the government can level against individuals who don't have health insurance.
This piece is from the Cato Institute in 2007, but offers help for the PRO side.
These items showed up when I searched for "health care mandate."
This piece is from the Cato Institute in 2007, but offers help for the PRO side.
These items showed up when I searched for "health care mandate."
Monday, January 21, 2013
LD help
There are a couple of aspects to look at with this current LD topic, Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.
The pragmatic approach (utilitarianism view) and the moral view need to be examined. To give you some insight into what's currently going on in this debate look at the following articles:
This one
and this one
Hope they help
The pragmatic approach (utilitarianism view) and the moral view need to be examined. To give you some insight into what's currently going on in this debate look at the following articles:
This one
and this one
Hope they help
Feb. PF Topic Analysis II - "Interests of the U.S."
Eat your vegetables! Go to bed on time!
When you're young your parents tell you these things because they're looking out for you. A parent who didn't care how much soda you drank or what time you went to bed would be considered a pretty awful parent. Even when people age, the concept of what's good for you isn't necessarily what you want to do is still very much alive. Find time to work out! Avoid fast-food! Don't tell that person what you really think of them! The things that are in our best interests often run contrary to our desires. Doing those things that would be beneficial to us often require discipline and self-restraint. We work out not because we enjoy making time for it, getting sweaty and waking up sore the next morning, but because we see the long-term value in the activity benefiting our interests - namely the interest of health. We restrain ourselves from telling off certain people because it benefits our professional relationship and helps us develop tact. The point is that good health, positive professional relationships and diplomacy are worth the sacrifice.
So when we're trying to asses whether the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the U.S., it's important for the PRO to remember that what is good for someone (or some country) may not always be what is immediately preferable. There are several different ways to measure the interests of the U.S. There are 3 which should really be looked at for this debate:
Economic
No country wants high national debt, inflation and a high unemployment rate, but the U.S. economy has suffered from these maladies. China owns a little over a $1 debt of our $15 trillion debt. In looking at how our economy is related to China's check out the trade deficit and how China manipulates its currency to keep its products cheap.
National Security
It's hard to separate The War on Terror from our National Security interests, but it's important to remember that we have other issues to deal with outside of terrorism. China isn't endorsing or supporting Al-Qaeda but there are a couple of areas that merit attention. One would be China's partnership with Iran. Another would be China's expansion into Africa.
Foreign Affairs
Our global influence has been tarnished lately with the ascension of China the and downgrading of our credit rating. It's no secret to the rest of the world that the U.S. was one of the first dominoes to fall in the global recession. Our authority and sheer hegemony has been suspect with the inconclusive results of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the surging of militant Islam in Libya, Mali, Algeria and Egypt. The bottom line is that U.S. is no longer viewed as the world's "Superman." We've recently proven to be vulnerable abroad and have made some foreign policy blunders.
These are some VERY broad-strokes. That means these are some VERY general areas to explore, this is not an exhaustive list of areas to utilize. It's very likely that at Hastings and Olle the main PF competition will be internal; our teams against our teams. So the more you diversify your case with solid arguments, the better prepared you'll be. And your judges will appreciate hearing some different arguments.
When you're young your parents tell you these things because they're looking out for you. A parent who didn't care how much soda you drank or what time you went to bed would be considered a pretty awful parent. Even when people age, the concept of what's good for you isn't necessarily what you want to do is still very much alive. Find time to work out! Avoid fast-food! Don't tell that person what you really think of them! The things that are in our best interests often run contrary to our desires. Doing those things that would be beneficial to us often require discipline and self-restraint. We work out not because we enjoy making time for it, getting sweaty and waking up sore the next morning, but because we see the long-term value in the activity benefiting our interests - namely the interest of health. We restrain ourselves from telling off certain people because it benefits our professional relationship and helps us develop tact. The point is that good health, positive professional relationships and diplomacy are worth the sacrifice.
So when we're trying to asses whether the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the U.S., it's important for the PRO to remember that what is good for someone (or some country) may not always be what is immediately preferable. There are several different ways to measure the interests of the U.S. There are 3 which should really be looked at for this debate:
Economic
No country wants high national debt, inflation and a high unemployment rate, but the U.S. economy has suffered from these maladies. China owns a little over a $1 debt of our $15 trillion debt. In looking at how our economy is related to China's check out the trade deficit and how China manipulates its currency to keep its products cheap.
National Security
It's hard to separate The War on Terror from our National Security interests, but it's important to remember that we have other issues to deal with outside of terrorism. China isn't endorsing or supporting Al-Qaeda but there are a couple of areas that merit attention. One would be China's partnership with Iran. Another would be China's expansion into Africa.
Foreign Affairs
Our global influence has been tarnished lately with the ascension of China the and downgrading of our credit rating. It's no secret to the rest of the world that the U.S. was one of the first dominoes to fall in the global recession. Our authority and sheer hegemony has been suspect with the inconclusive results of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the surging of militant Islam in Libya, Mali, Algeria and Egypt. The bottom line is that U.S. is no longer viewed as the world's "Superman." We've recently proven to be vulnerable abroad and have made some foreign policy blunders.
These are some VERY broad-strokes. That means these are some VERY general areas to explore, this is not an exhaustive list of areas to utilize. It's very likely that at Hastings and Olle the main PF competition will be internal; our teams against our teams. So the more you diversify your case with solid arguments, the better prepared you'll be. And your judges will appreciate hearing some different arguments.
A couple of links to get you started
Googling, Binging, Yahooing - whatever you want to call it - "Chinas impact on the U.S." brought up these websites:
This is on about.com which is usually suspect so check the sources.
This is from a CNN blog from a couple of years ago. And it's on CNN so it's dumbed down. That's right: CNN is for dummies.
And this is from The Heritage Society. The Heritage Society is very Conservative.
Enjoy.
This is on about.com which is usually suspect so check the sources.
This is from a CNN blog from a couple of years ago. And it's on CNN so it's dumbed down. That's right: CNN is for dummies.
And this is from The Heritage Society. The Heritage Society is very Conservative.
Enjoy.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Feb. PF Topic Analysis I
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.
Another proposition of fact...ugh. And we have "On balance." I want to set those aspects aside for now and just focus on framing the topic.
After WWII, the United States was more or less the only developed country standing. Unless you lived in Pearl Harbor, your town was pretty much able shift from making war supplies to manufacturing goods to be consumed by a population that saw its men return from the war and start families. Home construction shot up. Jobs were created. Our economy was pretty self-sufficient not just because it had the resources but because it HAD to be. Who else was going to help? Most of the developed countries in Europe were in shambles. Japan had been decimated and cowed into submission. And the United Kingdom was digging itself out of the Blitzkrieg and taking care of its own.
So what was happening in China? What follows is highly generalized: The Soviet Union kicked Japan out of China. With the Japanese out, China faced a power struggle between the communists and the faction representing the Republic. The communists won and China became "The People's Republic of China." The U.S. most definitely saw the rise of China's communism as a threat but were soon entangled in a different Asian country: Korea. The ensuing Korean War pulled the U.S.'s attention away from China.
During the 1970's, the government "relaxed" a lot of its policies. Despite the fact that the Chinese constitution provides for free speech, freedom of the press, etc. the government tightly regulates these rights. But China recognized that truly communist governments don't usually have thriving economies. Cuba. North Korea. Venezuela (I know - they're Socialists, but bear with me). These countries do not have thriving economies. So China adapted it's brand of communism to partner with free markets. It's not that China's human rights record is much better than those other countries, but what China did pose was a threat in terms of its rapidly expanding population and the fact that it has nuclear weapons. As a result, President Nixon opened trade with China as a way of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. The idea was that China would be a viable trading partner the U.S. could benefit from. Few people, if any, predicted that China would wind up having the power in the relationship via owning our debt because our own economy would demand high government spending and decrease the value of our dollar. Currently, China owns about $1.2 trillion of the U.S. debt.
The "rise of China" is a figurative rise. Their economy, their hegemony, their military and their global influence have all risen from what was a borderline third world environment over the past sixty years. The debate over whether or not China is a "developing nation" or "developed nation" is not relevant to this debate (this is my opinion). The "rise" is not what's in question. The question is whether or not it can benefit us or harm us.
Another proposition of fact...ugh. And we have "On balance." I want to set those aspects aside for now and just focus on framing the topic.
After WWII, the United States was more or less the only developed country standing. Unless you lived in Pearl Harbor, your town was pretty much able shift from making war supplies to manufacturing goods to be consumed by a population that saw its men return from the war and start families. Home construction shot up. Jobs were created. Our economy was pretty self-sufficient not just because it had the resources but because it HAD to be. Who else was going to help? Most of the developed countries in Europe were in shambles. Japan had been decimated and cowed into submission. And the United Kingdom was digging itself out of the Blitzkrieg and taking care of its own.
So what was happening in China? What follows is highly generalized: The Soviet Union kicked Japan out of China. With the Japanese out, China faced a power struggle between the communists and the faction representing the Republic. The communists won and China became "The People's Republic of China." The U.S. most definitely saw the rise of China's communism as a threat but were soon entangled in a different Asian country: Korea. The ensuing Korean War pulled the U.S.'s attention away from China.
During the 1970's, the government "relaxed" a lot of its policies. Despite the fact that the Chinese constitution provides for free speech, freedom of the press, etc. the government tightly regulates these rights. But China recognized that truly communist governments don't usually have thriving economies. Cuba. North Korea. Venezuela (I know - they're Socialists, but bear with me). These countries do not have thriving economies. So China adapted it's brand of communism to partner with free markets. It's not that China's human rights record is much better than those other countries, but what China did pose was a threat in terms of its rapidly expanding population and the fact that it has nuclear weapons. As a result, President Nixon opened trade with China as a way of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. The idea was that China would be a viable trading partner the U.S. could benefit from. Few people, if any, predicted that China would wind up having the power in the relationship via owning our debt because our own economy would demand high government spending and decrease the value of our dollar. Currently, China owns about $1.2 trillion of the U.S. debt.
The "rise of China" is a figurative rise. Their economy, their hegemony, their military and their global influence have all risen from what was a borderline third world environment over the past sixty years. The debate over whether or not China is a "developing nation" or "developed nation" is not relevant to this debate (this is my opinion). The "rise" is not what's in question. The question is whether or not it can benefit us or harm us.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Who is Citizens United? Depends on who you ask...
So while researching the FEC is as painfully boring as waiting for a class to finish a standardized test, Citizens United is a little more interesting, mainly because of its partisan nature.
There are two things to examine:
1. What is CU's mission?
2. Who is David Bossie (CU's President and Chairman of the Board)
You don't have to do much researching to conclude that it's the Conservative's answer to Michael Moore. For what it's worth, they both have imdb profiles:
Michael Moore's imdb profile
David Bossie's imdb profile
One look at Bossie's "headshot" on imdb and he looks like Salesman of the Month at your local car dealership. Here is Citizens United homepage:
What CU is
And here is why people criticize them:
Liberals Hatin' on CU
It is worth noting that the criticism is partisan (Liberals hate them - Conservatives defend them). And when you read the article you should probably do a quick search on the Koch Brothers, who they are linked to.
Or you could read this. You're welcome.
(Disclaimer: There are a handful of spelling/grammatical errors in the above article. Apparently the desire to bash the Koch Brothers and CU overwhelmed the desire spell-check and proofread.)
There are two things to examine:
1. What is CU's mission?
2. Who is David Bossie (CU's President and Chairman of the Board)
You don't have to do much researching to conclude that it's the Conservative's answer to Michael Moore. For what it's worth, they both have imdb profiles:
Michael Moore's imdb profile
David Bossie's imdb profile
One look at Bossie's "headshot" on imdb and he looks like Salesman of the Month at your local car dealership. Here is Citizens United homepage:
What CU is
And here is why people criticize them:
Liberals Hatin' on CU
It is worth noting that the criticism is partisan (Liberals hate them - Conservatives defend them). And when you read the article you should probably do a quick search on the Koch Brothers, who they are linked to.
Or you could read this. You're welcome.
(Disclaimer: There are a handful of spelling/grammatical errors in the above article. Apparently the desire to bash the Koch Brothers and CU overwhelmed the desire spell-check and proofread.)
The FEC: Six People You Meet and Could Care Less About
With the Federal Election Commission being involved in the January PF topic, I looked into what the FEC does and who's involved. What I found was intriguing..said no one ever. I hate to sound cynical and it's important for debaters to understand the Who, Why, etc. regarding the FEC, but beyond a basic understanding of what function it serves there's very little controversy. Here's the link:
FEC
FEC
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)