Part the First: Jan-Feb. Part the Second: The Chump Returns.

“War. Oof! What is it good for? Absolute nuthin’.”

These lines (not penned by Cole Porter) always run through my head when we look at a topic like Jan-Feb. “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.”

War. Oof!

This is, to put it mildly, one of the most important geopolitical issues of our times. Students learning about and evaluating this issue is of great educational benefit. It matters. Testimony v plea bargaining, on the other hand, like many topics, is interesting enough on a “Law and Order” level, but it’s not one of the pressing issues of the day, and of little concern to people in general. Realistically speaking, we expect our courts to act both fairly and expediently and, well, for the most part they do. None of us are sitting around worrying that Sammy the Bull somehow committed an immoral act nailing the Teflon Don, or that the prosecutors were immoral in their use of old Sammy, or that Sammy lied, or that Sammy got off too easy. And of these may or may not be true, and may or be not be arguable, but they are sterile issues insofar as they affect our everyday lives. On the other hand, we may have just stepped back from the brink of yet another war yesterday, a war of yet a new series of unforeseen damaging consequences directed by proven incompetents already mired in more war than they know what to do with. Iran not actively developing nuclear weapons may be the best gift they could have given the United States. I applaud their pro-Americanism, because it was merely a roll of the dice whether at some point before being drummed out of the White House Cheney and Co would lead the troops down the streets of Tehran to the accompaniment of the young children throwing rose petals in front of our tanks and grown men and women weeping as they welcomed their liberators.

What a crock. But don't worry. Iran isn't going away any time soon.

Needless to say, my interest in running non-resolutional material is at its highest low, its greatest nadir, its furthest ebb, whatever. To diddle with arguments such as, there’s no such thing as justice, or there’s no way of determining the posing of military threats, or some nonsense that pretends the question is unanswerable is a waste of time because the question is being actively asked by our government, and has been for at least a generation, and has real answers with real consequences. It is the real world. You can address your answer through lines of real world argumentation as practical as Realpolitik, or you can address your answer through Just War analysis, but you do have to answer the question because the possession of nuclear weapons is both attractive to non-possessors, and threatening to their enemies. Coaches who urge that we duck the question are urging their students to ignore a serious issue that will haunt their entire lives. Oh, yeah, there’s no such thing as justice, so we can’t argue this.

Get real.

We talked about this last night aboard the USS Hud. As one looks at it, one starts seeing a clear historical line all the way back to October 1962 (which, curiously enough, brings up what you're looking for if you merely plug “October 1962” into your Google search box). Then look at the casus belli (with apologies to “Seinfeld”) of Iraq, the war that took the acronym WMD from Policy debate and gave it to the masses. Look at North Korea. Iran, of course. From Carnegie.org: “It is estimated that some 27,000 nuclear weapons are divided among eight nations, five of which (the United Kingdom, the United States, France, India and Israel) are regarded as stable, democratic allies. The other three—China, Russia and Pakistan—are regarded with some uncertainty. The ninth member of the Nuclear Club is almost certainly North Korea and Iran is likely to join in the next few years. The newer members pose the continuing threat of destabilizing regional or global politics.” Look at the Osirak strike; give some thought to the US using Israel as a proxy to attack Iran (not happening anymore, with the recent news, of course, or at least not for a while). Look at South Africa’s nukes (as in, whatever happened to them). The more you look at all this stuff, the more you can begin to create a profile of a situation that fits the resolution. You can understand that certain nations have certain characteristics that make them want the bomb, that drive them to develop the bomb, and that make their possession of that bomb a serious problem. You can’t argue total nuclear disarmament because the genie is already out of the bottle. No matter how you slice it, we can easily face a nation sworn to enmity of the US, doing its damnedest to get its hands on nuclear weapons.

(As an aside, you could of course run the Old Baudleroo’s approach to nukes, but I wonder how well he’d hold up under serious analysis. Then again, running the Old Baudleroo sort of sidesteps serious analysis in an LD round, wouldn’t you say? Still, pure analysis of nuclear gamesmanship is on the table.)

Anyhow, the gauntlet has been thrown down by our choice of this topic. Students who actually learn about it will gain incredible benefits. Probably even students dedicated to kritiking it will still gain the benefits, if only from their need to block against debaters who actually care about the subject. But will it make for good debate, regardless of how it is argued? I have no idea. But debate is about a lot more than debate. And you knew that already.

---

Herman Melville over at WTF informs me that the Chump is changing his content, and will henceforth be addressing personal questions of a Dear Abby nature. In other words, he has gone from debate trivia to debate self-help. Herman kindly send me a beta copy of his first such column, which I attach below.

---

Stump the Chump

Dear Chump:

I keep forgetting to provide an underview for my opponent’s overview when I’m running off-case framework arguments that subsume both cases and leave an unsightly mess in the boys’ locker room. What should I do?

Theoretical in Wisconsin

Dear Theo:

Take two spikes and call me in the morning.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

Ever since I joined the debate team I spend half my day fighting off the young women who now find me immediately attractive, unlike previously when if they gave me the time of day, it was Daylights Saving in January. What should I do?

Too Sexy for My Shirt

Dear Too:

It is a well-documented fact that debaters have an irresistible appeal to members of the opposite sex. Some people call this GDS (Good Debater Syndrome); others refer to it as IYDYB (In Your Dreams, You Bozo). To eliminate this problem, at WTF Institute we recommend memorizing whatever you watch on television the night before and then repeating it word for word to anyone who is attracted to you, ending each descriptive sentence with “Remember that?”. This guarantees they will never want to be in the same state with you again, much less have the hots for you, even if it’s a small state like Delaware.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

My parents say that ever since I’ve joined the debate team, everything with me is an argument. In response, I cite McArthur 1997 “Adolescent Behavior Modes” as evidence for my claim that it’s not an argument, it’s simply a contradiction, at which point they complain that if I’m going to steal material from Monty Python, I could do better than that, which does not link back to their original argument, but still they send me to bed without any supper, the only saving grace of which is that both of my parents are the worst cooks in our state, even though it’s a small state like Delaware. What should I do?

Just Say No

Dear Just:

In situations like yours, where you parents never want to engage you in lively repartee, much less belabor every little facet of your existence, I recommend disowning them and taking up with the Kiwanis. Also, keep the phone number of a good Chinese delivery restaurant among your speed dials.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

What’s the best way to defeat evidence your opponent makes up on the spot?

Slow-footed Sue

Dear Slow:

If your opponent makes up good evidence on the spot, I recommend copying it and using it in your next round. However, if your opponent’s evidence has no inherent ability to win rounds, your best bet is to point out to the judge that his fly is open, and let nature take its course.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

What should I do with my hands when I’m giving a speech?

Mitt

Dear Mitt:

Anything but that.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

If the fire alarm goes off while I’m speaking during a round, what should I do?

Smokey the Aff

Dear Smokey:

This problem comes up often, especially during gang warfare season in Celebration, Florida (the Mouse Bloods versus the Duck Crips). We recommend stopping your timer and telling the judge you’ll be right back, and running like you’ve never run before to the nearest exit. If the alarm proves to have been real, you will have saved your life, and won the round by default for inspiring your incredulous opponent and judge to likewise seek an immediate change of venue. If it turns out to be a false alarm, however, just walk back into the room, mumble something about fire wardens, and start up where you left off. This will usually work with parent judges.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

I get nervous even thinking about speaking in public. My hands sweat, my knees knock and my head twitches uncontrollably. What should I do?

Heebie the Jeebie

Dear Heebie T. J.:

First take a jump to the left, then a step to the right, with your hands on your hips you bring your knees in tight—you get the idea.

The Chump

Dear Chump:

Are you ever going to get tired of writing these stupid parodies of poor Mr. Cruz who is obviously suffering from some horrible disease that twists his face up like a demented pretzel, if that picture is anything to go by?

Outraged in the Small State of Delaware

Dear Out:

No.

The Chump

P.S. And go back to Delaware where you belong, and stay there.