Christmas in June: The 2013-14 resolutions, part three, in which all good things, and some bad things, come to an end.

6. In the United States, the jurisdiction of a federally recognized tribal court ought to extend throughout the borders of the tribe’s reservation.

You know, I hate to admit it (and, for that matter, you know I hate to admit it, for those of you who understand the use of commas), but I have no idea what the point of this one is. The federal government has a special relationship with tribal governments, all of which is probably very interesting to learn about (in fact, I have in my day been quite a history buff in this area), but the underlying point of this one escapes me. The little bit of research I did online to clarify it didn’t help.

You can go here as a starting point: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/justice.htm

I would hope that further analysis would uncover an area of tribal rights vs federal hegemony or something, and more to the point, material that would lead to understanding the unique plight of the tribes in America. But the fact that I can’t see it straight on makes me believe I’m either dipping too much into the sauce lately or that this one is going to be a bit of a muddle. I’m inclined to believe the latter, given the steadiness of my hand as I type.

Rating out of a high of ten: ? I’ll reserve judgment until someone explains this to me.

7. Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

If I’m not mistaken, I saw that somebody on Facebook claimed that this was their camp topic. I’m not particularly surprised. This is the second of the three no-brainers.

As a general rule, humanitarian needs do indeed trump politics for the US. If Iran has an earthquake, for instance, we send in a bunch of help without limitations, and they accept it, and then hostilities are suspended until the situation is resolved, at which point we’re back to calling each other names. This strikes me as a good thing. (And note that US is not mentioned in the rez.) But the key word in analyzing the rez is “unjust,” meaning that it’s not necessarily about what is most moral action. Fairness/justice makes you stop and think about this. Of course, my example of disaster aid is only one kind of humanitarian assistance. What about cases of less immediate import?

Anyhow, I see this as meaty and, potentially, again, Jan-May. I don’t know if I prefer it to the DNA topic; I have only just noticed that that one too does not say US, which allows for discussion of tyrannical governments using the DNA, which I don’t like much because of the inherent evil thereof. Oh, well. They are what they are.

Rating out of a high of ten: 8. (And if I were so inclined, I’d go back and similarly rank DNA as an 8, due to the non-US-ness.)

9. The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

The last of the no-brainers, and probably the best of the bunch. It’s real, immediate and long term, public safety v. individual rights. Do I need to say more? My only fear is that, because it is so clean and clear, it might not have four months of legs.

Rating out of a high of ten: 9.

10. When in conflict, developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

The dangling modifier aside, this would be a great topic (it’s a chestnut, at least used twice before, I think) if one side argued the environment and the other argued economic development (a better wording concept that resource extraction). That’s why they say, when in conflict. Unfortunately, too great a number of debaters evaluate the resolution, for the neg, not as that resource ext would have to be prioritized over environmental protection, but that the environment need not be prioritized over resource extraction. In other words, the aff must argue for the environment while the neg, not feeling restricted to one or another, gets to argue something else, to wit, sustainability. Duh. Of course sustainability is better than either of the two alternatives, but the resolution, ineptly unfortunately, wants you to choose one or the other. That’s where the WIC comes from. It’s hard to argue that the weasel sustainability neg is a misreading, because it really isn’t. But it is weaselly. I judged a bazillion rounds of this back in the 90s, if I recollect the dates correctly. It was horrible. I kept wanting to hit negs over the head for being weasels, and then I wanted to hit the affs over the head for letting them get away with it. I probably voted reluctant negs almost every time. If you have some way of always going neg, and you’re a weasel, this is the topic for you. At its core, as a matter of fact, it’s pretty fascinating. But LD never looks at the core of an idea if it can help it. Never has, as far as I can remember.

Rating out of a high of ten: 3

And, obviously out of numerical order, I’ve saved this one for last.

8. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was immoral.

Everyone who looks at this one has, I think, the same reaction: That’s not an LD resolution, probably because, at first glance, it does not ask what we should do in a certain situation. It asks what should we have done. Secondly, although we’ve argued nuclear issues all over the place as long as I can remember, those issues have always included the ideas of MAD and proliferation and nuclear holocaust and the like, none of which are relevant in 1945. We’d have to throw out the nuclear playbook, in other words, to argue this one.

Which is exactly what we should do. If this topic isn’t fun, I don’t know what is. I certainly wouldn’t want to see it for the Jan-May long haul, but as a NatNat or Districts topic, or even Sept-Oct or Nov-Dec, I think it would be a hoot. At its core, it asks key questions about warfare, while allowing for educational benefits in teaching history.

Please, people. Vote for this one.

Rating out of a high of ten: 10 for any time slot other than Jan-Feb.

So, my feeling about the list overall? Honestly, about the same as always. There's some really good ones, there's a couple of confused ones, there's some stinkers. Given the way these things are developed, it's a pretty good job. I only wish that more time and thought went into the whole thing rather than relying on a handful of hours at one event. Countless thousands of hours will go into debating them. A few more hours should go into developing them. But of course, we've discussed that at length in various places, including TVFT. It is what it is, until the NFL makes it better. If you want them better and you're an NFL member, you know who to talk to.