Ahhhh. The new LD resolutions have been sent out to a waiting world. I love watching people dicker about them on WTF. Someone will list the absolute best, and the next person will list those same ones as the absolute worst. Of course, often we can’t tell about the mechanics of a resolution until we get into the trenches, but why should I not contribute my two cents just like everyone else?
R: Military conscription is unjust.
Interesting subject, although, well, it’s not. Unjust, I mean. Oh, it could be handled unjustly, I guess, but not inherently. Still, this rez would force people to evaluate what responsibilities we have as individuals to society, and it also might raise questions about just/unjust wars, so it could be interesting.
R: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
Again, interesting subject in a new area for a lot of students. Awfully wordy, though, but apparently of necessity. Anyhow, sovereignty to me is one of those subjects that is wide open, and therefore interesting to argue.
R: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
Curious subject area, but I’m happy to admit that once again it opens the door to some interesting research about the rights of the disenfranchised, or maybe more specifically the limits of disenfranchisement.
R: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
Come on. If this isn’t the NatNats topic, I’ll eat your hat. Or else it will not be any topic, because it is way too complex for a short debate round. Still, you could feed off this one all year if you wanted to.
R: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
What? Oh, well, every deck has a joker. I guess what they’re going for here is the limits of federal law, but marriage (gay, straight or just marginally askew) is a local—and not a constitutional—issue, unless we were to make it such, and why would we. I can’t see this one getting off the ground at all. (Even if this one was a typo, and it should say “gay marriage,” I’d still not think much of it. We’d still only be arguing federal versus state statutes, which is awfully precious for two months of argumentation.)
R: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reunited families.
This is sort of an apples and oranges resolution with a rather forced conflict. I’d like to study immigration, but I don’t think the rounds would be too good on this one.
R: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Again, sovereignty, international law, all that good stuff that is so vague in our standard texts and our standard approaches to resolutions. I’ve got a feeling, though, that arguments would go off that track into analyses of crimes against humanity per se, but this one might be okay.
R: Public high schools students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
One of the biggest hot-button issues in the US today. My only issue is that it is so likely to go stock so quickly, there being not too many positions on either side beyond the obvious big ones.
R: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
Again, wording is a little curious, but who doesn’t want to argue torture?
R: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
I can’t see this one working out. I like analyses of law qua law, as in the old resolutional chestnut of civil disobedience, but CD is one of those things that could conceivably be relevant in one’s own life, whereas vigilantism hardly ever comes up at the dinner table, at least in my house.
If you’re keeping score, this has to be one of my most favorable critiques of one of these lists ever. Good work on the part of the committee. They should be commended for it.
2 comments:
Here's hoping that we get the reservations topic for Bump and the voting felons topic for Big Lex (or vice versa). Those are my two favorites.
I'm pretty sure the marriage one is trying to say that marriage shouldn't be enshrined in law anywhere in the US. thus it becomes a cultural, religion-separation, etc issue. I rather liked that one...
Post a Comment