They’re here! The new LD resolutions, that is.

Every year ten possible resolutions for the next season are posted after NatNats, then (a handful of) NFL members vote for their favorites in given time slots. Then everyone complains. But the VCA is well aware that around here, we don’t wait to complain until the last minute. We do it at the very first opportunity.

Let’s take a look.

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

I personally think of this one as sort of ridiculous, since I vaguely remember something called the Civil War in the US which allegedly put an end to secessionist ideas except for people who have two years of food, a vast collection of weaponry and a statue of the Holy Wingnut in their basement. Are we supposed to argue against the Union? What is this? 1863? For non-US, let’s see. How many countries even comprise entities capable of seceding, for one thing? The point of nation-ness is that it is absolute; suggesting that it isn’t, or shouldn’t be? Why? Anyhow, what particular moral/ethical issue is at stake here? I guess this is thought of as a pre-nup for the social contract, but inherent in democratic polity is that the government represent the people, end of story (or end of government). After all, Hobbes rationalized regicide as an acceptable social action in certain situations…

Rating (scale of 1 to 10): 0

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups.

SCOTUS said no to this, but that doesn’t make them right. I think SDO’Connor wrote the decision, if I recollect correctly. Anyhow, it’s an okay topic, asking the question whether present day populations carry some responsibility for the actions of previous populations, given that those actions can be socially determinate. On the other hand, I’m not excited about it because it seems sort of narrow, as written. And it allows minority vs non-minority debaters to get a little too dirty and potentially ad hominem.

Rating: 3

Resolved: United States Supreme Court justices should be subject to term limits.

This one is wonderfully nutty: did anyone read the SCOTUS article a week or two ago in the New Yorker? Get it now, just in case this one goes live. Anyhow, what we’re addressing here is very specifically the power of the court, which as it stands now is unbound aside from its inherent need for an internal majority. So the underlying subject is governmental power, and the voice therein of the population. Obviously as it stands now, the Prez picks ‘em according to partisan politics, Congress approves/disapproves them when they pretend not to even know there is such a thing as partisan politics, and then once they get in they put the wingnuts to shame with their unabashed partisan politics. I think this one will be fun, mostly.

Rating: 8

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.

Let’s see. The wording, because of all the clauses and limitations, means that people will actually have to argue whether the US is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Right. The point is, you can’t try to push the rez off the track with some wording mumbo jumbo. Normally I demur from wordiness, but here it's necessary. The rez requires an underlying argument that the US has/hasn’t international supra-sovereignty responsibilities (or that everyone does, and simply that the US has the wherewithal), and it requires that you know about the hows of intervention and the wheres of human rights abuses. Can you say Jan-Feb? My only demurral on it is its inherent complexity for novice debaters.

Rating: 9

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Voting is compulsory in Australia, for example, and much of South America. The rez broaches the basic areas of civic responsibility, social contract, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Plus, it’s only 8 words. In other words, absolutely perfect, especially for Sept-Oct or NatNats.

Rating: 10 (5 for Jan-Feb).

The next five next time.
.