And so we continue.
3. Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is just.
This is the first topic on the list that I think does what ought to be done. First of all, it’s a big issue for real. Secondly, it asks to weigh concerns of public safety versus concerns of individual privacy. Additionally, it forces us to understand exactly what it means, scientifically, to include DNA in a database. How does that compare to fingerprints? What can be done with this information other than tracking down perpetrators after a crime has been committed and DNA evidence discovered, which is presumably the reason for the db in the first place? Can we look at your DNA and see if you have some disease that will shorten your life, and somehow route that information to cause you harm? Is there a simple harm of invasion of privacy, period? What right does the government have at all to invade your body when you are not suspected of criminal activity? What’s the 4th Amendment in all of this?
In other words, you can argue this about twenty thousand different ways and the cows still won't be home yet. At first glance the wording doesn’t seem particularly problematic, although there may be some covert issues that will arise with deeper scrutiny. But why bother? The core content of the resolution is rich and full. Only those who refuse to argue the resolution at any cost will search elsewhere.
Rating out of a high of ten: 10. Good for literally any time period, and a contender for Jan-May (as the Jan-Feb topic is traditionally understood).
4. Hypersexualized representations by the media are immoral.
What?
My guess is that this is presumably an attempt at a resolution that will incorporate feminist concerns, but I could be wrong. Maybe it’s about the fact that the unlimited adjective-free “media” (which would be books, movies, television, radio, vinyl records, the internet, advertisers thereon, and a whole lot of et cetera) is oversexed. In other words, the poster for the US version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo would be immoral, and the content of the book The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo would also be immoral. Maybe it’s about pandering to our basest instincts, if we wish to include sex among base instincts.
If the point was feminism, how about a resolution that says something like, Women in the US are disadvantaged because of their gender? That way we could look at real feminist materials and get some great reading and education done. We could also examine in a classroom setting the mechanisms of sexism (which are akin to the mechanisms of every other —ism). I mean, if that’s what the point here is. Or if the point is really to address sexy advertising (which I have to admit was the way I read this on first blush), then say so very specifically, because the word media standing all on its own is every medium under the sun.
The more I think about this one, the less I like it. I obviously question what it’s talking about as vague beyond understandability; as a group, will LDers grok it in the same way? I guess it’s the equivalent of “Use of sexual images in aid of commerce is wrong.” Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but the basic arguments in favor of free speech which must needs allow unfortunate speech as well are pretty canonical and accepted, so I guess the debate here is about morality at its most undebatable level.
Rating out of a high of ten: 1.
I’d stop here, but the next one is a piece of cake:
5. In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.
No.
At the point where my legal advocate is no longer my legal advocate, I have no legal advocate. At best there is an opportunity for learning here about the point of the justice system, but the legal system is what it is, and to suggest that we change it by eliminating privilege is to, essentially, kill all the lawyers, which is only a good idea if you happen not to need one. Look for 80% neg wins if this one passes (the 20% going into the random rounds where the top seeds hit first-years and eat them for breakfast).
Rating out of a high of ten: 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment