1. Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.The "targeted killing" resolution is my initial favorite, not only because of its timeliness, but because it's focused without seeming too specific. (#8, for instance, seems too narrow for my tastes.)
2. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
3. Resolved: In the United States, possession of handguns ought not be an individual right.
4. Resolved: The use of eminent domain for private economic development is just.
5. Resolved: Estate taxes are just.
6. Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.
7. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.
8. Resolved: In the United States, law enforcement ought to be required to have probable cause to search data an individual has stored on remote servers.
9. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
10. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
What's your favorite?
I like #3. And I agree with you, number 8 is really narrow.
ReplyDeleteTargeted Killing is going to be awesome! I really hope it's the September-October topic. I heart my eyes reading #8.
ReplyDeletePlenty of room for K's on #6 and #10.
ReplyDelete#3 seems like a horrible topic for judge bias and predisposition.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous #1, if it's as good as we both think, it may end up as the Nationals topic.
ReplyDelete#2, indeed.
#3, definitely could be a topic that has wide regional variance.
Out of curiosity, what would be some things to think about for the economic gap topic? Obviously the social contract will come up a lot, and a Hobbesian will argue differently than a Rawlsian, but what questions should I be thinking about?
ReplyDeletePipes, you can bet that Rawls will show up frequently, given the Difference Principle.
ReplyDeleteI'd think that one crucial argument will be whether economic inequality ought to be tackled for inherent reasons, or whether empirical effects are justification enough. For instance, if economic inequality has some sort of causal relationship with health--high inequality reduces health, or somesuch--then, from a consequentialist perspective, governments ought to reduce inequality.
The resolution doesn't say how wide the gap is, or at what level the gap is morally significant. "Rich" and "poor" are fairly vague terms, and are vastly different in different contexts, hence anonymous's comment above about the ready application of kritiks.
There will be tons of topic literature available. Wonder if it'll make the cut...
I'm Anonymous #3.
ReplyDeleteThere are actually Kritiks for just the words "rich" and "poor," so a truth-testing framework might work for the Neg.
And to add to the Rawls comments, the Difference Principle might work in compliance with a socialistic case. Just an idea.
I am really liking the #3 I feel there will be plenty of arguments, critical and stock, for and against gun rights. I also feel there is a lot of room for disad ground due to the infringing of right to possession. I also believe (since this is often implied in real- world debates) it has the possible susceptibility to certain bias. I am hoping for the best with these and think a lot are very good and some not very good. hope to hear your and many others thoughts, and we'll see tomorrow!
ReplyDeletei really like #10! there's so much left up to interpretation. although i am a bit confused with social contract tying in with morality... i mean, if i were to use morality as my v and then try to use the maximization of societal welfare for my vc would that be able to work? sorry, im new at this :)
ReplyDeleteFor the resolution #7, what would be a good criterion and core value?
ReplyDeleteI love #2, #3 (although I can see the bias) but I think #10 is as vague as #8 is narrow.
ReplyDeleteHope your summer's going well Mr. A!
I'll admit values never really were an issue where I debated, but for #7 it depends more on your case structure than on related directly to the resolution. For example if the arguments are that
ReplyDeletepreserving/prioritizing the environment enhances the quality of life, preserves the world for future generations, and preserves plants and animals for use in medicine in the future, you would obviously want something about the consequencialist benefits.
However if we are looking more from a critical standpoint about how entrenching on nature hurts the inherent rights of animals we might have a completely different structure.
I'd probably choose a value of justice since it asks what a just society would do and then choose my criterion based on my conception of justice. Respecting the rights of all living creatures could be an interesting one for the affirmative. (If it is well defended the contentional level can be very brief and you can have 4+ minutes of framework)
I think the resolution can be very observation based to be honest as we can contort prioritize x over y in so many ways.
For the short version (not sure how long posts can be)
V: Justice for both sides
VC for both:
maximizing utility
preserving life/rights
VC for aff:
protecting nature
respecting rights of all living things
VC for neg:
state sovereignty (the arguments about needing to not be dependent on other countries for fuel)
hahah, I get to whip out the analytic truth-testing "for a right to exist it must be universally respected" AC if #1 gets picked
ReplyDeleteWhat would be a good V and C for #10?
ReplyDeleteI'm anonymous #13 (because its my favorite number) Can you tie in evidence to #10, and if so, how do you?
ReplyDeleteWell #10 has already been chosen as the november - december topic and is in action at the moment but ...
ReplyDeleteAff:
V: True Morality (resolution prescribes it)(True Morality is the selfless concern for others and is objective and this works well against Moral Skep)
VC: Upholding rational altruism
Neg:
V: Justice (Defined by Aristotle as giving each their due)
VC: Upholding Rational Egoism (Rational before it helps because now people can't run arguments such as trading a rock for a car against you)
Also for the Neg, you can find a block stating that any suffering we reduce is only going to be reduced for a brief moment in biological time (the Aff is essentially trying to reduce suffering so this works against all Aff's) If they drop the warrant, then it proves we have no moral obligation because all efforts we make is going to amount to nothing.
Any good values and value criterion for #2?
ReplyDeleteAny ideas for V and VC for #9?
ReplyDeleteI linked a good number of documents on the 2012 Nationals topic at http://www.squidoo.com/RichPoorGap. Check it out.
ReplyDeleteAny ideas for a value and criterion for #1 on the aff side? I feel like it's so difficult to go aff on this one!
ReplyDeleteFor #1 what is a good Negative core value and value criterion to run?
ReplyDelete