LD mailbag: aff and neg case ideas

Today's LD mailbag, about the Nov/Dec LD resolution, comes with two shell cases. Let's see if we can add a little yolk.

I'm a fairly new debater and I'm having a little trouble building my case (I've already been working on it for two days) and I'm still a bit stumped. I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers or just point me in the right direction.

Here is my Aff case so far.

Value- Justice
Criterion-Distributive Justice

cont 1-Felons are citizens
(evidence)
sub point A -all citizens should have the same rights
(evidence saying because all felons are citizens and they follow the same laws and have same legal duties the government should not be able to take away their rights if the felon has already served their sentence or is serving at the time)

sub point B-felons are equal to other citizens
(evidence supporting that felons are just like other people not completely moral or immoral and disenfranchising them is unjust)

Cont 2 Disenfranchisement is unjust punishment (I'm not quite sure how to tie it into my value and criterion if possible)

subpoint A-does not serve as a deterrent
(no evidence yet)

subpoint B- works against rehabilitation
(no evidence yet)

cont 3-???

First, "distributive justice" doesn't seem to fit as a criterion, since it doesn't match the second contention, and only obliquely relates to the first. Instead, we might have a dual criterion. One is a utilitarian justification: just punishment deters crime and rehabilitates felons (Contention 2). The other is a side constraint: punishment must be given within the bounds of due process and equal treatment under the law (Contention 1). I think those, if properly argued and defended, could be sufficient grounds to reject disenfranchisement of felons.

Subpoint A of the first contention needs help, though. If all citizens deserve the same rights, what justification do we have for taking away felons' rights to life, liberty, and property? We have to show either that voting is fundamental to citizenship in a way that those rights aren't, or come up with some other principle of justice that disenfranchisement violates, and retool the contention.

Okay, on to another case.

I'm a novice and I was to hoping to get away from the social contract on the negative side.

A teammate gave me the idea of running how felon's mindset is bad for enfranchising them. Also, something about how that is demonstrated by a town with a non-felon population of 3,000 and in the same county there's a prison with a population of 5,000.
My value would be societal welfare, and my criterion would be governmental legitimacy.

The problem is, I'm having a hard time understanding how to link it all together and how to argue it without being subjective... especially after writing my affirmative case.

The first argument, that felons are somehow unfit to vote, is usually argued in this way: felons have committed a crime and therefore have bad moral judgment; the state has the obligation to protect itself against those with bad moral judgment; therefore, the state has the obligation to disenfranchise felons. Still, the social contract lurks just outside, reappearing should any affirmative ask one simple question: in a democratic society, where does the right to vote come from?

The mathematical hypothetical example given, at first, seems powerful. If 5,000 incarcerated felons vote en masse to elect a soft-on-crime candidate, despite the wishes of the peaceful minority, won't the social fabric be torn apart?

Not exactly, for several reasons. First, a society in which more than half the population are felons is hard to describe as "democratic;" it would be so awash in criminality to necessitate a tyrannical government, or have such terrifyingly bad laws as to strain credibility. Second, such a society would be so economically stagnant and hard to manage (who's going to keep that many prisoners under lock and key?) that it would soon implode. Third, the only realistic scenario under which this would take place is a "prison town" where the inmates are mostly residents of some other locale. (That's how it works in the U.S., at least. The prison isn't your legal residence.)

So, unless I'm making some huge error in fact or reasoning, I find that argument difficult to sustain.

If you have case questions, either post them in the comments or email them to me, and I'll tackle them here on the blog.

a lukewarm defense of democracy

The Nov/Dec LD resolution forces debaters to consider the value of voting. In an otherwise unrelated blog post, Jason Kuznicki, who has a knack for clearly explaining complex ideas, provides a connection between the social contract and the right to vote.

Voting is a tricky thing, since it’s a positive, or government-created right; you don’t have a right to vote in the state of nature. The social contract creates voting.

By entering into society, you surrender a distinctly limited number of your natural rights, for instance the right to extract restitution forcibly from those who have wronged you. In compensation for giving these up, the state gives you some other rights (like voting, and trial by jury). All the other rights not clearly mentioned in the deal are yours to keep, at least in theory. And there’s no sense in saying you’ve given up more than you really have.

Negatives who are running the social contract analysis need to frame the distinction between natural rights and positive rights; it's essential to establishing the government's warrant for taking away the right to vote when a felon is convicted.

I like Kuznicki's answer to the objection that the social contract is a mere construct (call this the "I didn't sign any social contract" objection). Kuznicki writes,

The real question is not whether there was a discrete moment in which you entered into society. Clearly there was no such moment.

We tell ourselves the story of the social contract as a way of comparing real life to a situation that is obviously just. The more that real-life outcomes approximate the obviously just situation of the social contract, the more confident we can be in the justice of the actual situation. Likewise, the less they resemble an obviously just case, the more we can doubt their justice. Thus, although you never entered into society as you would enter into a contract, we still evaluate society as if you did — and when we find things that you would never accept in a contract, there is a plausible case to be made that these things are unjust.

Later on, in the comments, we get a social contract-esque defense of democracy.

I see the greatest value to democracy as follows: It ensures, better than any other system we know, a peaceful and orderly transition of power. Peace and order are still worth keeping, even if I disagree with the policies of the candidates running.

Kuznicki calls this "lukewarm." Still, from a realistic perspective, lukewarm might be the hottest water we can get.

Added: Oh, and if you need them, here are Kuznicki's bona fides.

a real life example of the felon voting resolution

As if to say, "Please use his name in every LD round concerning the November / December resolution," the fates have intervened, allowing convicted Alaska senator Ted Stevens to vote for himself in the upcoming.

Stevens was convicted Monday on seven counts of trying to hide more than $250,000 in free home renovations and other gifts that he received from a wealthy oil contractor. Alaska law says "a person convicted of a crime that constitutes a felony involving moral turpitude under state or federal law may not vote in a state, federal, or municipal election from the date of the conviction through the date of the unconditional discharge of the person."

But state legal officials say that since Stevens has not been sentenced yet, he is eligible to vote in the general election, said Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections.

He won't be sentenced until sometime next year.

Besides, when you're given the chance to say the phrase "moral turpitude," how can you resist?

extemp world rocked: Christian Science Monitor to go online-only

Extempers have relied on the Christian Science Monitor for years. No other citation carries so much weight with such panache. The CSM, though, apparently lacks readers outside the forensics community, and is dropping its print circulation to focus on its digital reach.

Come April, the Boston-based general-interest paper — founded in 1908 and the winner of seven Pulitzer Prizes — will print only a weekend edition after struggling financially for decades, its editor announced today.

The Monitor's circulation has fallen from a peak of 230,000 in 1970 to about 50,000 now, while its online traffic has soared. The newspaper gets about 5 million page-views a month, compared with about 4 million five years ago and 1 million a decade ago.

The Monitor was one of the first newspapers in the country to put content online, beginning in 1995, when correspondent David Rohde was taken prisoner in Bosnia.

"Obviously, this is going to help with our costs, but it also enables us to put much more emphasis on the Web and basically put our reporting assets and our editorial assets where we think growth will be in a very tough industry in the future, which we think is the Web," said Editor John Yemma, who was The Boston Globe's multimedia editor before he moved to the Monitor in June.

Well, National Forensic League, when're we going to drop the facade altogether, and allow Google in the prep room?

color: coordinated

Warning: highly addictive.

An incredibly nifty algorithm lets you search Flickr photos by color scheme. But don't try to click on more than ten colors, lest you incur the wrath of the Search Limitations Act of 1729.

[via BoingBoing]

LD mailbag: felons and Foucault

Readers have sent in some good LD questions regarding the current "felon voting" resolution. I'm answering them here in the hopes that others will gain insight as well. As always, add further questions or constructive criticism in the comments.

I'm pretty new at debating, and I'm having trouble writing cases. (I've been at this computer for the last six hours and still haven't come up with much!)

Here's my affirmative so far:
V: Justice
VC: ?
C1: The right to vote ought to be inalienable for all people in a democratic society
[backed up with evidence, etc.]
C2: ?
C3: ?
And my negative:
V: Justice
VC: ?
Obs.1: Felons = incarcerated AND ex-felons, affirmative must prove both
C1: Currently incarcerated felons are wards of the state and do not pay taxes, thus they should not retain the right to vote.
C2: Felons have shown lack of judgment by committing felonies, thus they cannot be trusted to vote.

Blargh. I'm so bad at this writing cases thing. What should I do?

I think either case is workable, with a few tweaks. Here's how I'd go about fixing them.

It seems like your criterion is "protection of rights." If justice is what people are due, then in a democratic society, they are due their rights. Right?

So, let's set up the affirmative this way:

1. The right to vote is inalienable for all people. (Felons are people, too.)
2. The right to vote is fundamental to other rights. (Which ties into the third contention.)
3. If felons are disenfranchised, society can use the law to disenfranchise dissent, a precious right in a democracy. (In the South, some disenfranchisement laws were drafted specifically to target African Americans.)

Now, for the negative.

C1 is not very strong, at least compared to other potential arguments. The elderly, for example, often pay zero taxes because all their income comes from social security. Yet they are allowed to vote.
C2 is workable.
C3 might be that felons have violated the social contract.

If the value was societal welfare, and the criterion the Social Contract, we could have two contentions.

C1. Felons' lack of judgment, combined with the right to vote, would threaten social order (thus tearing apart everything the social contract is meant to establish and maintain).
C2. Felons' violation of the social contract inherently warrants disenfranchisement.

Another reader writes,

I was wondering if you knew how Foucault's Normalization theory could be applied to the new LD resolution on felon disenfranchisement.

I'm no expert on Foucault--I'll leave that to Josh--but I think Foucault applies to this resolution in several ways. I mention one here.

"Normalization" is the process by which society standardizes its norms as a means of control. Felon disenfranchisement laws are perhaps the least subtle instance of this tactic, since they rely on the reason in the negative C1 listed above: that felons are "abnormal," and thus lose the right to vote. For a primer on Foucault's theory of societal punishment, check out this article.

So, Josh: any other thoughts?

whoa... we're wireless at Gig Harbor: part II

8:16 a.m.
I have to add the a.m. suffix, now, since this is Day Two of the Gig Harbor tournament, and we're smack dab in the middle of Round One, Pattern A. I'm running on zucchini bread, an egg, slightly caffeinated coffee, and moxie. If you're awake and reading this "live," my empathy is boundless.

10:24
I watched a Public Forum round. The resolution: that the United States government should implement universal health care based on the French system. Negative contention one: "universal" means "covering every condition at 100%" and since the French system isn't "universal" in this way, it's logically flawed and we can't affirm. Never mind that in the context of health care, "universal" and "comprehensive" aren't synonyms. Shorthand version of the contention: the framers are stupid.

11:56
Competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate means knowing what ICCPR stands for. It's great reading, trust me.

2:12
Pattern B--Impromptu, Humorous Interp, Oratory, and, as my former coach called it, I Can Read. The ratio of nervous energy to fatigue is reaching a critical level.

3:04
With his wireless connection, Mr. Anderson liveblogs, or, in better moments, helps debaters research important statistics or arguments to bolster their previously-demolished contentions. August, on the other hand, downloads service packs onto a jump drive so he can transfer them to his wireless-less tablet PC.

3:38
What is the carbon footprint of a debate tournament?

5:14
"Did somebody not take a Gandhi quote? How do you not take a Gandhi quote?"

Moyer on the mound tonight

This blog has declared its abiding love for Greg Maddux on many an occasion. Today, we salute Jamie Moyer, who not only pitches with eagle-like intensity and crafty intelligence, but is a humble guy to boot.

How can you not fall head over cleats for a guy who, after more than 20 seasons in the majors, still sits on the dugout bench and contemplates the simple beauty of a baseball game? Yeah, it's corny. That's what makes it so great. He doesn't care that it's corny.

"When I was 8 years old, I started playing baseball," Moyer says. "And I'm 45 and I'm still playing, at a different level, but it's still the same game. That you can never take away. That is never going to leave, this part of the game.

"Six outs to a full inning. In a major league game, you're going to play 8½ or 9 innings. That is never going to change. The money changes. People change. But the game itself is never going to change. … The people who designed this thing are brilliant."

I wish I could watch you pitch tonight, Mr. Moyer. Here's hoping you can turn it around this postseason. It'd be nice to know that at least one regional sports hero is enjoying success in something.

Update: Moyer's strong effort was almost derailed by a shaky bullpen outing, but the Phillies hung on to win and have a 2-1 series lead.

Cougars grind out win, beat North Thurston 29-24

Down by two TDs, the Cougars were being shut down by a tough North Thurston defense, until Joe Tolman gathered it up and returned it to the domicile.

Following North Thurston's second touchdown in a span of just 28 seconds, Tolman returned the ensuing kickoff 93 yards to put Capital on the scoreboard and seemingly wake up the slumbering Cougars.

The defense soon rebounded and Riley Wall and the offense took care of the rest as the Cougars emerged with a 29-24 Olympic/Western Cascade League win over North Thurston at South Sound Stadium.

"We haven't been in that position all year, but we knew they were going to come to play," said Wall, who ran for 168 yards and two touchdowns. "We knew they were going to come ready, we just needed to step it up."

At last, the Cougars are in complete control of their own destiny in the OWL.

Up next: Yelm.

whoa... we're wireless at Gig Harbor

6:27 p.m.
Gig Harbor has wireless, so this is a semi-liveblog of their speech and debate tournament. It's early Friday night, the time when the grease of pizza and the caffeine of soda have joined together in perfect harmony in your small intestine, and you have a nagging itch to argue over trivia. Example. In the middle of downtime, two CHS debaters are arguing whether XP or Vista is the superior Microsoft OS. A bit like asking which Titanic bathroom is the cleanest.

6:53
"You get better food for judging. No, let me rephrase that. You get free food for judging."

7:15
Another round needs to start, and soon. Nerd-gaggles slowly creeping back into the cafeteria. The rustle of pantsuits and cheap silk ties.

8:47
I watched my first round of the evening, after spending most of my time coaching from the sidelines. It is so hard to avoid making faces when people make putrescent arguments. So hard.

8:54
Has any debate tournament in the history of debate tournaments ever begun and ended on time? Methinks we'd have to travel back in history to at least the Middle Ages, when the Oxford Aquinians faced the Locke Posse, the former forfeiting due to perceived bias when the adjudicator declared himself a "tabula rasa" judge.

It is nearly 9:00 Debate Standard Time, which is long past midnight elsewhere.

9:14
This concrete block disguised as a bench has won the battle with my lack of sufficient padding. Thanks, genes + diet. (Exercise is not in that equation, remarkably.) I'll sign off because--hope against hope--we'll be leaving soon. And to think: I'll be back here at 7:30 tomorrow. Maybe even blogging.

go time

Our first debate tournament of the season starts this afternoon. If the blog seems a little quiet, with random outbursts of philosophizing, that's why.

From Tacky Ties 10 24 08

From Tacky Ties 10 24 08

This week's ties originally posted here.

parents and the dropout rate

Contention one: Parents are key to high school success.
Contention two: Kids are less likely to graduate than their parents.
Satirical conclusion: Parents are secretly undermining their kids' chances.

In all seriousness, it's good to see major media reporting on the dropout rate, and why it, not standardized testing, is the central educational problem of our time.

contest opportunity for high school journalists

Forest Taylor of the Allstate Foundation passes this link along, writing,

Essentially, by writing an article about smart driving and having it published in their school paper, high school journalists can help make a difference and create awareness about the No. 1 killer of teens. To help writers get started, The Allstate Foundation has provided story topic ideas, tips on smart driving, startling facts, and other resources at www.keepthedrive.com/journalist. Submissions will be accepted until September 1, 2008 to March 6, 2009.

The grand prize is $3,500. Not bad.

a general debate case rubric

When students are critiquing others' cases, I find it absolutely critical to provide a basic framework, so their comments are as specific as possible. (When it comes to feedback, there's nothing worse than "good job.")

Thus, I present to you a debate case critique rubric, which is applicable to any sort of debate case in general, although it's expressly created for Public Forum debate.

Download it for yourself here.

science in action

They may not be award-winning, digitally retouched masterpieces, but they're real photos of real science in action, sent by a loyal reader who will remain anonymous unless he chooses to break the silence.

Up first: Demodex follicularum, a mite that inhabits the sebaceous glands on your face. (Normal light microscopy.)


Second: A crawfish nerve. (Confocal microscopy.)

Capital shuts out Timberline, 21-0

Last week's loss to North Kitsap was essentially the result of crucial injuries, as the Cougars went without Reid and Riley Wall and quarterback Kellen Camus. This week, Riley and Kellen were back, and combined with Capital's stingy defense, the pair led the Cougars to a 21-0 victory.

Late in the third quarter, Camus, a 5-foot-8 junior quarterback, scrambled out of trouble and completed a 41-yard touchdown pass to Jourdan Weiks, who had gotten behind the defense near the goal line.

"It was a broken down play and I was scrambling," Camus said. "But Jourdan was still running his route. I saw him deep."

Weiks caught Camus' pass and dove into the end zone for a 15-0 lead with 33 seconds left in the quarter.

Camus struck again on Capital's next possession when he completed a 13-yard touchdown pass to Hunter Sapp for a 21-0 lead with 10:21 left in the game.

"We talked about that play on the sidelines and what the linebacker was doing," Camus said. "We knew we could throw over the top of him. I just put it up and Hunter made a great catch."

Unfortunately, Riley Wall was reinjured late in the game, and his status for next week's contest against North Thurston is questionable.

can USC score 100 points against the Cougs?

They're playing Washington State this afternoon, a week after the Cougars ceded 63 to Oregon State. (Wazzu has given up 233 points in 4 Pac-10 matches!) I'd say the Trojans' chance of passing the century mark is around 50%.

Anyone wanna bet a can of Cougar Gold cheese on a miraculous upset?

Update: 69-0, the first shutout in 280-odd games for Washington State, and perhaps a fitting way to end the streak: in abject and utter humiliation.

today's umbrage links

Adam Kirsch describes how, in his Rawls-directed ire, Raymond Geuss is a modern-day Thrasymachus.

Jacob Weisberg takes several shots at libertarians. The cheapest:

The worst thing you can say about libertarians is that they are intellectually immature, frozen in the worldview many of them absorbed from reading Ayn Rand novels in high school.

Emily Yoffe parses the evolutionary roots and social utility of umbrage.

The Transportation Security Administration is, apparently, bad beyond umbrage. Read the whole thing. Like the novel 1984, the last sentence is the saddest. [via Mark Frauenfelder]

"But our favorite Canadian import walked."

The incredible Red Sox comeback that you, and practically everybody else, missed because you had given up on the 7-0 game in the 7th? Bill Simmons was still watching.

poly and rayon

Two tacky ties, each a little late. It's been... busy. No injuries, at least.