Showing posts with label feb.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feb.. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
February PF Debate Topic
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Jan./Feb. Debate Topics
Lincoln-Douglas January/February Topic
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict
Public Forum January Topic
Resolved: Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict
Public Forum January Topic
Resolved: Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa
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.
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
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
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!
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!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Birthright Citizenship
Here's some good stuff from a solid source...
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/birthright-citizenship-debate/p23900
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/birthright-citizenship-debate/p23900
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)