The next batch of LD resolutions

I looked briefly at the new LD resolutions when they were published, and my initial reaction was not quite the usual dismay this list annually encourages. I’ve been a little under the weather lately, but I’m starting to bounce back, and so this might be a good time to look at next season in a little depth.

1. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

I look at topics a couple of ways. First, I look at them as conversation starters. That is, I look at them as areas of discussion for a number of serious hours as the team looks at the subject area of the resolution in general. Secondly, I try to imagine how they’ll work out as resolutions in the rounds. A topic can work well for one and not the other; given my druthers, I would prefer that it work well in the former, the preparation, because that’s where we all get to educate ourselves. Rounds brevis, prep longa, or something along those lines.

Anyhow, what gives the US this right? Does any other country have this right? Does military force (unspecified as it is) contradictorily include nuclear options? How do we determine that a nation is a military threat? To whom? For that matter, how do we know someone is acquiring nuclear weapons versus simply nuclear technology for power generation? These are the questions that immediately occur to me, all of which more than satisfy the prep requirement of a topic. I will love discussing this with the Sailors. In a round, on the other hand, it might not be so much fun because there are so many aspects to it. There’s no underlying philosophy to apply; what you need are political analyses. In other words, it’s more policy than LD, if that’s your understanding of LD. It could work out though. I will offer this piece of advice: flip neg. (VBD has chosen this as, I guess, their secondary topic for extra research. That’ll keep the little suckers busy!)

2. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.

Too unspecific. It would be interesting enough to talk about US examples (obviously slavery, not so obvious how economic reps would work: would that include Affirmative Action?), but historical injustices couldn’t be vaguer in the real world or in the philosophical world. Pomo alert: Yesterday’s justice is today’s injustice; it depends on who’s in power. Historically, I could argue, pretty much every group that can be defined socially has been treated unjustly. In prep, this would be okay, although setting the price tag would be interesting; in rounds, probably a disaster. The temptation to come up with some cockamamie examples in rounds only because the debaters believe their opponents won’t know those examples will be succumbed to again and again. I like this subject, but the wording is going to work against it. A specific Aff Act rez would cover the same grounds philosophically and politically, with none of the slippery possibilities (or at least a lot fewer slippery possibilities, and in fact, a CRT approach would be reasonable and therefore worth discussing in prep). I can’t see voting for this one.

3. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.

I would imagine that this one will be a big vote getter. You could phrase it a variety of ways, but it boils down to the same thing: what the hell is government all about? Purists will definitely be shaken out of the trees by this one. I just hope it doesn’t go to Nats, leaving the rest of us bereft of it—it’s that good. (To be honest, I’m not quite sure how the new NFL voting will work. We’ll see.) In any case, thumbs way up. No surprise that VBD picked it for their primary topic; I would have done the same.

4. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

This is almost a prep-free topic. Aside from throwing around a few Utilitarians and making the annual Peter Singer jokes and tossing out the old Mr. Spock quote, what is there to say? On the other hand, it’s pure and simple and the sort of topic that forces debaters to toe the line and actually debate. There will be big ideas on both sides, in conflict, and the rounds will be won by the debater who debates the best. So I can see this potentially as a big vote getter. It’s a little lower on my personal scale, though, simply because of the fact that there’s not a lot of generality for brainstorming. No one’s going to learn much from this topic, aside from how to debate. That’s okay, it’s just not great.

5. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.

I like judicial topics, at least as far as prep is concerned. Nobody knows nuthin’ so it’s fun from the getgo. I mean, what’s the point of law if the laws don’t matter in a courtroom? Or, what’s the point of justice if it can’t be meted out with reason? Unfortunately, I’m a little dubious here about the connection in the resolution (which is not presumed) between nullification and checking the government, and that could lead to problems. I see this as fun prep, and then you hit the wall of making that connection in a meaningful fashion, which means, ultimately, confused rounds. I think JN has been presented better in the past, but I’ve got a feeling this time the season is right for it. It will be okay, but not great.

6. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.

A non-starter. Figure you need about three years of prep to sort out exactly what they’re talking about. Start with South Africa, look at every other country you can think of, try to derive a principle, go forward from there? I can’t see it. Every case is so specific, I can’t imagine any check on the rounds starting in Cloud Cuckooland and going higher into space from there. Prep will also be all over the map. Send this one over to PF.

7. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.

Again, the vagueness bothers me. Who are these international lenders? Which countries? Why are they indebted? There are so many dependencies. I could have some fun in prep, but rounds will be all over the place, while at the same time probably stock at the core. This is not something most people sit around wondering about, if you know what I mean, and a good resolution has some niggling problem at its core, where you think to yourself, if we could only figure that out, the world would be a better place.

8. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

Whoa! Where did this come from? I’m not quite sure how it would play out in rounds, and my guess is that it would be fairly stock, but maybe in a good way (as with #4 above, making a situation where the best debater wins). In any case, as far as prep is concerned, as I say, I like studying judicial areas, and this one will be new to most of us. I’d like to see it on the docket, but I’ve got a feeling I may be in the minority on this one.

9. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

What we need here is an editor. The way the English language works (and remember, that is my day job), hate crime enhancements = enhanced hate crimes. The idea of enhancements to hate crimes means better and more robust hate crimes. Obviously the intention here was to evaluate whether special punishments ought to be incurred in hate crime situations, and not whether we should have more robust hate crimes. And I guess obviously that’s what people would debate. Still, I do wish that a grammarian were consulted before these things are published. We are meant to be educators, after all. This is like a letter home from your kid’s teacher where there’s words misspelled and the grammar is inaccurate. It’s just frustrating. I like this subject, but if we have to argue this topic as written, I will be petulant for the entire duration, and I’m petulant enough already not to require further inspiration.

10. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Again, I wish we were a little more specific. By not limiting this, we allow people to potentially debate too many different things. I love the subject of pharmaceutical patents, and for that matter patents in general. Intellectual property rights is an exciting area of study. My assumption is that here we’re thinking about AIDS drugs in Africa, so why don’t we just say so? The good news is that aff would be presenting this, and starting there, so at least that’s the manifest grounds for the debate. But I’m sure that there’s negs out there that aren’t occurring to me off the top of my head who will find something else to argue about. Still, this is a good subject area, with great prep opportunities that will probably roll out okay in rounds. IP should be rich for us for years to come.

In summary, quite a good batch of resolutions, with very few that I dismiss out of hand. Assuming that the universe at large is pointed in the same direction, they should work out well.