As I came from a meeting this morning, this stuff was on my
mind. So here’s a couple of notes on the debate topics in no particular order
and somewhat stream of consciousness. While I am doing a quick proofread on
this, I’m not doing any heavy editing and I’m relying on spellcheck to fix my
horrible typing on this tiny keyboard. So please excuse any grammar issues and
if you have questions, please feel free to reach out to me.
1.
PUBLIC
FORUM DEBATE (BEGINNING and ADVANCED): NFL 2015 September/October PFD Topic
"Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations
to African Americans."
a.
Couple
of notes on the resolution itself, while the obvious implication of the term
“reparations” is some sort of monetary compensation, that’s not explicitly
called for in the resolution. The definition of “reparations” that you’ll
probably arrive at is to make amends for a wrong and typically this means
paying money, but doesn’t necessarily have to. You could therefore argue that systems
such as affirmative action in college admissions are a form of reparation.
Second note, the resolution specifically states “African Americans” so the
implication is that these reparations would be related to historical slavery. It
also means that if you do bring up something like affirmative action, you’re
dealing specifically with African Americans and not generalized affirmative
action programs that could be applied to other racial, gender, sexual
orientation or other minorities. By the way, if you read the resolution strictly,
you might even argue that since slavery isn’t explicitly mentioned, that may
not be the only reason why African Americans are owed reparations. You might,
for example, argue that because of lack of consent, families of the
participants in the Tuskegee study in the 1930’s are owed reparations. Or that
reparations are due for the effects of segregation through the middle of the
1900’s.
b.
Neg
– I’m writing the negative side of this first because, well honestly it’s
probably because I’m not black and so have some innate prejudice towards the
negative side in this debate, but I’m going to justify writing this first
because in my outline I happened to remember an article from last year (2014)
in The Atlantic. You should probably
look that one up.
i.
One
of the big problems with monetary reparations is the amount. Figures vary
widely. From less than a billion to upwards of $10 Trillion (not a typo). I
read one article about a year ago in The
Atlantic that put the figure at something like $4 billion a year for a
decade or two. Seriously, that was the specificity ‘a decade or two’. Unless
you have a specific plan and a specific amount in mind it becomes almost impossible
to discuss, let alone, debate, reparations from a monetary sense because the
estimates vary so widely. What if the federal government just gave every
African American $1? The other aspect that makes this difficult is to figure
out who gets paid. In some more recent examples of governmental shadiness, it
might be possible to identify individuals, but the US census doesn’t track
family ancestry, so how could a valid claim be proven or disproven for
something like slavery? And even if you could put a number on it and identify
beneficiaries, how should that figure be divided justly? Should descendants of
Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson get a bigger slice of pie because of a
lineage that’s tied to one of the founding fathers? Should the descendants of
field slaves be granted a larger portion than domestic slaves because of the
type of labor? As a practical matter, monetary reparations are nearly
impossible and that’s not even dealing with the political issues.
ii.
In
re college admissions, this is something of a good tack for the negative since
you’re not bogged down with slavery and the figures are more on your side. I
didn’t have the numbers in my head so a quick Google search yields this http://www.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-race-college-admissions.aspx
you can probably find something a little more recent. Side note here, Skynet
isn’t going to come kill us with crazy Terminator machines. It’s just going to
give us bad information on Google searches. You’ll be like “how do I cook
lasagna” and too late you’re going to realize that Arsenic is not an herb, but
that’s what you get for blindly following Skynet’s instructions you sheep. When
the calm British lady voice on your GPS tells you to turn left, you have the
right, nay, the responsibility to tell her “look you crazy b***h, it’s a one
way street. Stop trying to kill me.” Go figure stuff out for yourself. But I
digress. The general sentiment of the argument, is that a pretty heavy majority
of Americans, and nearly half of African Americans think that college
admissions should be merit based, not race-based. Simply on the merits of the
Federal government doing what its citizens want, we shouldn’t use race in
college admissions. There’s a joke in here somewhere about Obama’s opinion not
mattering because he’s not a citizen, but I’m too lazy. The flip side to that
argument is that in general, Americans are in favor of Affirmative Action
programs and these can be taken as a form of reparations. What I find more
interesting in the article is the survey question about what role the federal
government should play in improving the lives of minorities. There you see a
big discrepancy between whites and, basically everybody else. Again I don’t
have good numbers for these off the top of my head and relying on a single
source is pretty bad, but these generally line up with what I recall from other
articles. Look around some, find more recent numbers and try to find some
varied sources. You should also look through what you can find on Fisher vs.
University of Texas since it’s coming through the USSC this term (though
after you’re done with this resolution) and lookup what you can on the 2003
ruling in Grutter vs. Bollinger.
iii.
Read
Richard Posner’s decision from 2005/2006 on reparations. It’s going to be
incredibly boring for most of you, but I happen to be a pretty big fan of
Richard Posner. Should you be so inclined, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com
(It’s finished now because one of the contributors died in 2014, but the topics
are well written and well argued on both sides). If you don’t read the opinion, at least read
some of the news coverage. The gist of the ruling was that there’s a big disconnect
between the wrongs of slavery in the past and modern claims of economic
hardship. Lookup Gen. Sherman and his “40 acres and a mule” idea and the
reaction of Pres. Johnson (Andrew, not LBJ) to it. I’d also suggest Walter
Williams. He’s an economist but not a particularly likeable one. If you’re
familiar at all with Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner are a quirky and the
economics is presented in a fun, witty way. Walter Williams is like the
opposite of that. He’s got some quirky ideas that use economic ideas and
modeling to draw conclusions that are kind of wacky, but they’re less funny “ha
ha” and more funny “there’s a clown trying to stab you in the face”. None the
less the ideas have some merit and if you can explain them in such a way as to
not make yourself look like a douche, they’re pretty logical.
c.
Aff
– One initial reaction of the affirmative is to latch onto the idea of
reparations for slavery. As I mentioned before, that’s fairly limiting on the
aff side, so I’d suggest you look at other aspects of the African American
experience. Segregation through the middle of the 20’th century and current
drug sentencing guidelines that disproportionately affect minorities (in
particular African Americans and Hispanics) are two examples where you might argue
for reparations far beyond the era of slavery. Also for subconsciously
associating all African Americans with Bill Cosby.
i.
Let’s
start by preempting the negative on a couple of dumb ideas. One argument you
might see on the negative is that reparations for one group would eventually
expand to other groups without limit. You should recognize this as a
slipper-slope argument. You should also critique it as a completely douche move
on the part of the person making it. Let’s say we make reparations to African
Americans and then the families of Chinese railroad workers, or Native
Americans who were driven off their land, or Native Hawaiians who were
illegally fucking annexed or children relocated to the US because of the
Vietnam War demand reparations. First, if reparations are an attempt to correct
a past wrong, then the limits of what reparations can be asked for are limited
by the wrongs the Federal government committed. And if you’re so inclined to
think this nation so star-spangled awesome (hat tip to Aaron Sorkin) that it
doesn’t do any wrong then there shouldn’t be an issue. Similarly, if you think
the government shouldn’t bear any burden for mistakes made in the past, then
there’s really no debate. Secondly, since when is taking more corrective action
a bad thing? Establishing consequence for past wrongs leads to a more just
society and one which its citizens can better trust, if only because they
believe that fear of such consequence will be a deterrent for such actions in
the future.
ii.
Expanding
more on alternative reasons why reparations might be due to African Americans,
you should look at the effects of segregation through the 1950’s and 60’s.
While the impacts of Brown v. Board
are perhaps less directly applicable today, they show that the government has
previously been willing to take corrective action where necessary to right
previous injustices. Further you might argue that the effects of segregation
and Jim Crow laws can still be felt today and even current issues like voter ID
laws, are simply modern equivalents of laws designed, if in effect if not
intent, to negatively impact African Americans disproportionately. Unlike with
slavery, things like segregation are modern enough that we could reasonably
identify and compensate the actual people who were affected (or very close
descendants). This makes it perhaps more reasonable to consider reparations for
these actions.
iii.
Specifically
with regards to reparations for slavery, look up Randall Robinson, Rev. MJ
Divine, and Henry Louis Gates. Those are a decent starting point that should
lead you to others. On a related but tangential note, technically if you’re
arguing about reparations for slavery, there was a good long period there where
what is now America was still a British colony so you probably want to hit up
the British as well. I’d also suggest you look up Eric Posner, I think
University of Chicago, but could be wrong. I recall he had a pretty good essay.
I remember doing a Lexis-Nexus search generically for Posner trying to get
Richard Posner and was like 5 pages into Erics before I realized I had the wrong
Posner. So look him up, it was pretty good.
iv.
Google
pointed me to this, which was something I wasn’t aware of but seemed kind of
interesting http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm/reparations
v.
And
since I had to search for numbers anyway, here’s the Atlantic article I
mentioned earlier: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
There was a response to the article, taking the opposite view in the same issue
so unless you have stored somewhere copies of the Atlantic from a year ago, I
leave you to go find that article on your own internet connection.
2.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
DEBATE (NOVICE and CHAMPIONSHIP): NFL 2015 September/October LD Topic—
“Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical
choices."
a.
No.
Of course not. How dumb are you to even ask? Most people aren’t qualified to
make their own medical decisions, let alone adolescents. I know 50 year olds
who couldn’t tell a migraine from an ulcer. I grant you that people are getting
advice from doctors and nurses but that doesn’t mean they’re in any way
mentally competent to make medical decisions. 77% of Americans believe in
angels. That’s not an age thing. 77% believe in angels and you want to leave
medical decisions to the dumber, younger portion of these people? If I could,
I’d leave their medical decisions to a robot, you wouldn’t have nearly the
shortage of viable organs for life-saving transplants and you’d have a lot more
test subjects for experimental new anti-biotics. In your lifetime, unless we
find a decent way to combat the antibiotic resistant strains of infectious
bacteria, you will see fatalities due to infection skyrocket to levels unseen
since the development of Penicillin. Basic surgery like a root canal could be
fatal. I don’t trust people to make medical decisions because they’re stupid.
Add on the stupid from being a kid and the stupid increases exponentially. I
make two exceptions for this: If you’re a minor emancipated from your parents,
fine, make your own medical decisions. Two: Doogie Howser. Everybody else, sit down,
shut up and do what the doctor and your parents tell you.
b.
Okay,
so realistically, this is a bit more nuanced. I am however going to throw you a
few hypotheticals. There’s a 15 year old kid diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
Not immediately fatal, but incurable and degenerative. She’s got, let’s say 10
good years. Doctors tell her that might extend to 15 or so years if she lives
on a strict diet and treatment regimen but that’s basically taking your 20’s
and saying “do I want to drink this shot or do I want to do three hours of
physical therapy?” In this scenario, the parents want more time, the patient
wants to do something other than PT followed by an algae shake and a sensible
dinner. The debate then becomes a quality of life vs sanctity of life argument
but one in which you’re asking who should have the right to make such a
decision? Is it the actual patient or the caregivers? Does the fact that the
patient is a few years from legal adulthood in any way diminish her ability to
make a reasonable and sound decision?
c.
Scenario
number two. Child of 16 has leukemia. Treatable but not necessarily curable.
Parents want to try an experimental drug with unknown side effects. Not knowing
whether it will work or what long-term side effects it might have. The doctor recommends
and the child wants to opt for more traditional induction therapy (e.g. chemo).
While the experimental drugs may be just as or more successful as standard
treatments with significantly shorter hospitalization and fewer side effects,
they are experimental. The parents believe they are acting in the best interest
of the child by minimizing the effects of the therapy, but should they be
allowed to contravene the recommendations of the doctor and decision of a child
who makes an informed decision in opting for a known treatment instead of an
experimental one?
d.
Third,
and this one just because Planned Parenthood has been in the news: 15 year old
girl is pregnant, should she need parental consent before having an abortion?
What if it was the result of a sexual assault? What if it was the result of
sexual assault by a family member? What if it was the result of a sexual
assault by a parent? Admittedly this one is probably not something I’d want to
run as an example in an actual round but it makes for a fun hypothetical. I
mean fun in the same way that repeatedly punching a kitten is fun.
e.
Last
example for now. A well intentioned couple who are members of the Christian
Science faith adopt a 12 year old boy who was orphaned but raised in an
agnostic home. The child gets sick and wants to seek medical treatment but the
adoptive parents’ religion forbids this. Should the child have the right to
override the parents? Note that in most of these examples I’m pitting the child
against the parents rather than the doctor but from a value debate standpoint
it may not make much of a difference. You may not even have to deal in life an
death. With the abortion example, the hypothetical could be phrased as “parental
notification” instead of “parental consent”, though that’s slightly less of a
direct clash.
f.
The
one thing that I want to strongly reinforce here, be consistent and very clear
on showing actual conflict in the debate. It can be easy to draw these to
extremes where there is no real conflict. Should a 4 year old with a heart
defect decide whether or not to get a blood draw for a test? No and it’s
ridiculous to ask. Should a 14 year old drug overdose decide whether or not to
get treatment? Probably not. There needs to be some conflict in the debate so
be sure you’re value clash is clear.
3.
POLICY
DEBATE (JUNIOR VARSITY and VARSITY): NSDA 2015-2016 Topic—“Resolved: The United
States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic
surveillance."
a.
US
Domestic surveillance programs
i.
There’s
really only a few federal government agencies involved in domestic
surveillance, the FBI and the NSA primarily. Other groups like the CIA have
surveillance programs but those are supposed to be focused on foreign targets
and other domestic law enforcement agencies like the DEA have tools they can
focus on domestic targets but not really large scale programs. That said the
resolution doesn’t specifically limit to government programs. You might for
example, consider mobile phone tracking by service providers like AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint or online tracking by advertising companies such as Google.
Both of those could be considered as surveillance programs and could be
curtailed by law, executive order or some other policy. You’ll probably face
more topicality attacks by running a case on something commercial rather than
governmental, but there are some interesting case areas.
ii.
Second,
make sure you have cards regarding the Senate’s failure to extend provisions of
the Patriot Act for NSA bulk data collection programs in May / June of 2015.
You’ll probably see one or two aff cases early in the year that are rushed and
this is a way to make quick work of those. NSA programs have been officially
stripped back already but these changes could also be seen as simply “reforms”
to the programs rather than curtailing them, so you have to work a little
harder than that on the aff. Start here: https://nsa.gov1.info/surveillance/
since the NSA publishes this stuff, its good background.
iii.
On
the flip side of things, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a lot of good
information on NSA programs, they even put it into a nice timeline https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline
Incidentally, if you should ever have to build cases on intellectual property
(e.g. patents, copyrights) the EFF has a ton of good stuff for that as well.
The history of the EFF is kind of amusing, staring from the WELL in the late
80’s early 90’s when you could still pop an MF trunk on a payphone with a tone
generator. As I digress into nostalgia for technology that doesn’t exist
anymore, the point is that the EFF is a good central starting point for you on
the affirmative side.
iv.
Read
Bruce Schneier. He’s a pretty smart guy. Just don’t get thrown by the squids https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/friday_squid_bl_496.html
Schneier is largely focused on security, though the discussion extends to
surveillance and privacy issues it’s generally shaped around what should be the
proper context for security – risk management.
v.
Ostensibly
the intent of these government surveillance programs is security. In the case
of the federal government, we assume national security. It’s possible, probable
even, that you’ll see arguments about surveillance for other law enforcement
reasons – immigration enforcement, drug interdiction, human trafficking, stuff
like that, but the main crux is going to come down to security. Should you see
things slipping into the realm of law enforcement rather than security, you
should immediately swing towards the idea of efficacy. Large-scale domestic
surveillance programs almost always have a “big data” approach that’s designed
to find needles in haystacks. They can help you find interesting connections
and point out targets for specific and more thorough investigation but they
rarely give you any kind of actionable evidence that might be used in criminal
or civil lawsuits, which is the point of law enforcement. Tools like PRISM are
more like Person of Interest than Law and Order or CSI. On
the negative side of this resolution, it’s an interesting angle to take to talk
about the potential law enforcement benefits but you have to be careful about
how those arguments are structured. It’s true that FBI wiretaps can collect
lots of information necessary for law enforcement agencies and even for trial,
but those tools are usually applied in specific instances rather than the
large-scale “domestic surveillance” programs.
While it could be argued that the tools and application of them are
topical, you’ll have a harder time proving significance / harms when dealing
specifically with tools rather than with the more far-reaching programs like
PRISM. You might identify a target with PRISM but you rarely gain sufficient
trial evidence from PRISM alone.
Okay, I’ve been going at this for a
couple of hours now. I’m ending here, at some point when I get motivated I’ll
add more.
[edited: 5 Oct. 2015] - PDF version here (Google Drive)
