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.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
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
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
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)