Since you brought it up, and because I have no interest in securing yet more $5Ks for you know who, I’ll talk about it here. I mean, the NFL resolutions. I’ve starred the ones I’ve voted for.
In United States courts, victim impact statements ought to influence sentencing.
In the Sailors’ poll, this one got the least number of votes. It’s easy to see why. I mean, even if there is a very promising concept hidden in there somewhere, no one really cares much. It’s just not an issue that comes up very often.
The precautionary principle ought to guide environmental regulations.
This one got a lot of votes. My guess is that this is a debate versus “A stitch in time saves nine” vs. “Screw you.” Historically environmental debates posit one side taking a position and the other side taking the same position but pretending otherwise.
The actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals.
The answer to this is yes. The Sailors liked it, but what do you argue, that corporations are not bound to act morally? Or that because they have more power than individuals they have to act more morally? Give me a break. Two months of this will guarantee the eventual supremacy of PF.
*On balance, violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
Say hello to one of the two possible NFL Finals topics. Although where does the “on balance” come from?
The United States government ought to allocate humanitarian aid to foreign nations based on the need of recipients rather than its own interests.
Well, somewhere in this concept there’s a debate resolution, but this isn’t it.
*A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.
The other National contender. An oldie but a goodie, most rounds are identical, and it forces debaters to actually debate. What a concept!
*In the United States public university admissions, socioeconomic disadvantage ought to be a higher priority than race.
The Sailors gave this low points. By me, if there’s a dark horse for Nationals, this is it. What debate coach doesn’t want to spend two months discussing one of the most important issues in American life today?
*In the United States, the federal government ought not limit the autonomy of local school districts to determine their own curriculum.
The Sailors like this one. It’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen, but I can envision a whole string of really bad debates pitting community values against national values, two complex and bogus concepts about which more can be said than your nightmares can hold. They’ll be pulling pomo out of the old Coriolanus for this one, and Communitarianism, and the right to be stupid if your community values stupidity, and the failure of your left be-hind. Still, there’s opportunity for interesting pre-debate discussion, so I concur, but only because I think this is marginally better than the other 5 I didn’t vote for.
*The United Nations’s obligation to protect global human rights ought to be valued above its obligation to respect national sovereignty.
The Sailors like it, and I agree. I mean, what the hell is the UN supposed to do, anyhow? Brainstorming alone is worth the price of admission. I’ve also always been a fan of the study of sovereignty. What does it mean? What’s its value on the open market? Didn’t work much for Saddam…
On balance, in its trade agreements the United States ought to value the welfare of workers in developing countries over its economic gains.
A stinker. Corporations are fair game in this discussion—how much oppression are those sneakers worth—but exactly what trade agreements by the US? NAFTA? This would be a true mind-boggler.
No comments:
Post a Comment