What you would hear if you were on the team

I'll print the beginning of the lecture I gave last night. I'm not big on lectures, because most people don't need some schmegeggie yapping at them for 45 minutes at a stretch, but there comes a time when a coach has to do what a coach has to do. Nothing here is particularly proprietary, and if you're actually interested in the core material, I might be happy to send it to you. I do believe that the world would be a better place if LDers debated the resolutions once in a while.

-----

The use of the state’s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust.

The logic of the resolution, absent the content: The use of X for Y is unjust.

Logical possibilities for the aff
X is unjust, even though Y is just. If aff proves ED unjust, aff wins
X is just, but Y is unjust. If aff proves PE is unjust, aff wins
X is just, and Y is just, but the use of X to promote Y is unjust. If aff proves that use of ED to promote PE is unjust, aff wins

Logical possibilities for the neg
The use of X is just, and promoting Y is just, and the use of X to promote Y is just. Neg must prove that the use of X to promote Y is just. Depending on what aff does, Neg might first have to prove that X is just, and/or Neg might first have to prove that Y is just

The content of the resolution:

Contention of most honorable coach: If the wording committee had intended to argue that, A) Eminent Domain is unjust, or B) Private Enterprise is unjust, the wording committee would have provided us with one of the two following resolutions:
1. The use of the state’s power of eminent domain is unjust.
2. Private enterprise is unjust.
The wording committee instead provided us with this resolution: The use of the state’s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. Honorable coach may be off honorable rocker, but maybe that’s what they intended us to argue.

-----


From there I gave the assembled multitude arguments on the justice or lack thereof of Eminent Domain and Private Enterprise. Then I gave them source arguments for the actual resolution. In short practice rounds two specific lines of analysis worth pursuing came up (role of gov in private enterprise, consequentiality). Personally, I've also always liked discrimination.

Anyhow, my hope is that any of the Hen Hudders, if they absorb this stuff, can walk into a round at Bigle X or thereafter and successfully defeat debaters who aren't running the rez. Beyond that, they're on their own.