There is a real world out there somewhere

When there is a topic like Mar-Apr, where there is regular discussion played out in the real world on a regular basis, and people have perfectly well settled opinions, and some people believe in juvenile justice for violent crimes and some don't, and all of them bloviate on it ad infinitum, it is curious that this sort of discourse never actually makes it into many debate rounds. This despite the fact that the reason the resolution was chosen is exactly because of its moment (that's the 3rd def of the word in Web 11, by the way, and not a typo). The minute John Lee Malvo was arrested, the topic was hot again.

Of course, in debate rounds, you'd think we were arguing the color of angel wings.

This is an easy topic. Either you argue that adolescents are culpable as adults, or they are not. I mean, you certainly believe one or the other in the real world, and there are certainly plenty of people who believe the opposite of what you believe, and the reason for either belief is one's opinion of adolescence per se. These opinions, which are based on fact and/or observation and/or some other warrant, are what should be argued first and foremost. This is Lincoln-Douglas debate, where we're supposed to be getting to the right or wrong of things. Why is it right to fry John Lee Malvo? Or, why is it wrong?

But, of course, that's too easy, and good luck getting any rounds where the two sides debate that rightness or wrongness. As usual there's all the predictable muddleheadedness afoot. There's the rights protection on the aff, for instance. I have nothing against rights protection for people charged with violent crimes, but in those instances there are two possibilities: you did the crime, or you didn't. If you didn't do the crime, you should not be convicted of it, and I guess one could build an aff around innocent juveniles having a better chance of getting off via adult due process, but that would be one hell of a cockamamie way of looking at the rez as a whole because, well, it's only a part. And, let's face it, we don't really want innocent adults getting convicted either, so while it's perhaps an attractive line of analysis if you don't think about it too much, it really doesn't go anywhere useful overall because it's non-unique as we say in the trade. It doesn't answer the real issue, why should juveniles be treated this way, or not? It's ends-based but only given one possible end when there are in fact two, i.e., the charged person is guilty and convicted. At this point, the weasel rears the ugly head, and the aff seems to want to run that the word "as" does not mean "with." That is, you will be punished as an adult but not with adults. This is, of course, negative ground, because it concedes that there is a difference between juveniles and adults, and worse, it attempts to undermine the negative strategy which will of necessity address punishment. So here's the problem: If the aff is running negative's punishment material, what can the neg do? Of course, this is bad debate on two levels. First, it's bad because, as I say, it concedes negative ground, and any good negative can beat it down with a stick in CX and bury it in the rebuttal. Second, it's bad because it is a conscious attempt by the aff to cheat his way into winning. It's an unreasonable position if one expects there to be a counter-position.

Of course, that never stops anybody. In a way it's like arguing that non-citizens should be given the right to vote; you all remember that chestnut. That is a meaningless position that simply cannot stand in any intelligent discourse on the subject; nonetheless, it was regularly argued and regularly defendable as arguable, despite the fact that it categorically contradicts the concept of non-citizen. The thing is, find some stupid thing that wins and argue it and win. That's what debate is all about, I guess.

I say this coming off an attempt to discuss anti-K argumentation, which turned out to be hard to discuss in a vacuum. The novices haven't been that exposed to it, I'm afraid. Oh well. They'll grow up soon enough.