Christmas in June: The 2013-14 resolutions, part one, the early years

I just got back from vacation, and I’ll get around to talking about it sooner or later, or at least hitting the high points, but while I was gone the potential LD topics for next year were released, and I always like to bat these around while they’re still fresh. At least the ones that are fresh, that is. There’s usually a couple of chestnuts in the bunch, as there should be, if LD is going to remain even marginally true to its roots. The chestnuts (like no gov v. bad gov) tend to get chosen for NatNats, which is historically the most traditional of LD venues throughout the season. CatNats works in that same traditional arena with its unique judge panels, apparently chosen by scripture and geography or, perhaps, maybe not, but usually that venue is burdened with an impenetrable and unique resolution. Anyhow, resolutions determine the nature of the debate about them, at least to some extent, and it’s always fun to look at the possibilities and see what we can make of them.

1. A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

I saw that someone had gone into a complicated song-and-dance over the fact that we farm organs from the brain dead, who are perhaps classifiable as not deceased, but I don’t really think the issue here is whether one is merely dead versus really most sincerely dead, at least, not in any debate anybody wants to be involved in. Let’s just accept that what the rez is asking is whether society ought to be able to redistribute someone’s organs after that person is dead.

One problem I see with this is the exceptions for religion. At the point where we say that a just soc ought to presume unless the deceased’s religion says otherwise, we’re negating. The thing is, if we accept on the affirmative that there are limitations to what the society can do, we’re really not affirming. An aff has to say that society owns your body after you die, period, for any real clash. Of course, in our modern debate world of limited advocacies, I would imagine a lot of people getting away with loosey-goosey interpretations of this. In any case, religion trumps society by default, neg wins or no one wins. Not good.

Which brings us to the core. Let’s take it face on. Resolved: Society owns your body after you die, period. That’s what this rez is saying, and that’s the underlying position of the affirmative, and while I guess I could come up with some science fiction construct that justifies it, I wouldn’t really want to have to do so. Nor would I be sanguine about arguments regarding the difference between the individual alive and the individual dead. You do own your body when you’re alive, but not when you’re dead? Or you really don’t own your body ever, and it belongs to society as a whole? Since we obviously don’t believe that a just society has sovereignty over your body when you’re alive, any argument that says that it has sovereignty over it when you’re dead must needs lead to questions of whether it has sovereignty over it when you’re simply useless to society (e.g., serving a life sentence). How would these arguments not warrant harvesting organs from live imprisoned child molesters?

Honestly, I dislike this one more intuitively than intellectually. I just don’t see what it’s about, in a world where resolutions ought to be about something. Yes, there is more need for organs than there are organs available, but the main reason for this (I’m assuming) is the lack of available organs in the first place, since you’re mostly talking accidental deaths as the source. I don’t know of any great movement afoot of people protecting their organs after they’re dead, nor any great social movement afoot for getting those organs from the recalcitrant. This is not an issue of great social moment. So on the one hand, I don’t see any great educational benefit from the rez, and second, I don’t see any great ethical/moral dilemma leading to meaningful discussion. People probably could come up with arguments on this topic, but no one’s going to like it much.

Rating out of a high of ten: 3.5.

2. A progressive income tax is more just than a flat income tax.

Yes, it is, which is why it’s the standard pretty much worldwide, and even most flat taxes, as such, are modified by deductions that render them proportionate. What’s the point here? Aff gets to argue the de facto economic reality/necessity (which already biases those able to game it better, i.e., the rich) and the neg gets to argue that we should simply give it to the rich in the first place without forcing them to hire fancy lawyers and tax consultants?

I gather that flat taxes have the potential to raise more income, but that would not seem to be an issue of justice so much as an issue of fiscal (and perhaps totalitarian) management. I’m sure I'm missing something here, and there is a hidden wonderful basis for a round or two, but as I say, I’m missing it. With a resolution like this, going aff pretty much seems to guarantee victory (aside from the residual—inane—belief in neg presumption in LD). Feel free to explain why I’m wrong, but I fall asleep just thinking about this one. At least the one above had the potential for a Zombie K.

Rating out of a high of ten: 1

More to come tomorrow. Jet lag rules at the moment.