Menick announces Menick Debate Camp

It will be called Jiminy's Longueur. This is NOT a play on Victory Briefs. Oh, wait. Of course it is.

VJ posted his analysis of next year's topics on WTF. Normally I don't cross-post over there, for the obvious reason that most people read it anyhow and don't need me to point it out to them. But in light of my new Feed approach, you might see a little more of this in the future. Anyhow:

VJ says, re the "Resolved: it is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt" rez: First, it’s a very interesting, literature-rich subject area that’s not often discussed. There is an international relations dimension, a economic justice dimension, and varying philosophical considerations. Second, it’s a big topic, so it is not likely to get stale. Third, it is a great opportunity for debaters to really focus on framework debates over “It is just” since so many topics tend to invite that discussion. Debaters can talk about traditional social contract notions of justice; can explore justice between countries; can discuss the conditions for a “just” contract—what makes a contract enforceable or not; and more importantly, resolve competing frameworks for justice. More...

To be honest, I don't see it. I may have blown it off at first blush, and I don't hate it or anything, but I don't see it as all that LDish. More PF, if you ask me. You've got poor countries someone gives aid to. Do they have to pay it back? It's really hard for me to see underlying philosophical ideas lurking anywhere there. Countries usually give out of a combination of self-interest and charitable urges. At what point is it in anyone's interest, or more to the point, certifiably just, that these "highly indebted poor countries" pay back the money? That's really not what goes on. There is, on the other hand, a big issue nowadays of the value of aid per se, the connection to democracy, etc., but those are not tied to the justice of repayment. By me, this is certainly arguable, I guess, but realistically, while it may be just or may not be, it's just not what it's all about. The idea that this might be the TOC topic, and hence, the topic the rules for most of the second half of the year, does not appeal to me. By VBI teaching it, one assumes that a lot of people will push for it just because they've got a leg up. I hope not. And I hope the Pffft topic people are paying attention, so that they can use it when the statute of limitations elapses in LD.

By the way, there's an explanation of the police accessing your home computer rez in the comments to VJ's piece. At least it explains it, saying that the question is meant to revolve around whether there is any privacy right at all to computer stuff. Problem is, it's still not a good resolution. My apologies to the committee members who voted for it.