I Got To Debate Potential LD Res #3: A Stoa 2015-16 Vote Update

I know, I promised a post on the Wildcards and OI/Storytelling Issue. That is on hold for now, although it will come to be soon. For now, something spectacular happened at the Corpus Christi Coastal Clash a few days ago and I must write about it.

The Parli res's were all the potential res's for the 2015-16 year, plus a few extras ('This House believes the odds are ever in Israel's favor' and 'This House would regulate the Academy Awards' were some other favs). I was able to debate the potential resolution I was most curious about:

Resolved: The use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals is moral. 

So how did that work out?

Things that happened like I expected:

• It was incredibly similar to the US international mitigation resolution from the 2013-14 season. So much so that we ran almost exactly the same case as the one I ran that year. I'm just glad I remembered it so well. For the sake of informed voting, I'm actually going to put that here, even though that means if this resolution passes you'll have a very loose version of my Aff case for next year. 
• RezA: Value Res 
• RezA2: Moral, not Ethical
• V - Safety of US Citizens
• Vl  - Constitutional Vow (yes, my partner and I both agreed this sounds girly. But it was better than 'Constitutional Promise' and we wrote this in fifteen minutes, kay?)
• Defs:
• Economic Sanctions - Trade barriers, restrictions on financial transactions
• Moral - Right action, morally righteous 
• C1. Moral Responsibility to US Citizens
• Constitution
• Ronald Reagan Quote 
• C2. US Citizens in Danger
• Soviet Union
• Communism
• Cuba [Was Going to Nuke Us. (the actual tag was just 'Cuba')]
• ISIS/Middle East Oil Sanctions
• C3. Best Alternative
• No military 
• Minimum US Harm
• Effective
• If you were here for 2013-14 (Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts) then you just recognized some major arguments that you may have even ran. The debate ended up hinging on whether or not governments can have morals and the negative impact on the people of the countries being sanctioned. Eliminate the word 'sanctioned' and replace it with 'invaded for the sake of mitigation' and you have the 2013-14 season. Personally, I absolutely loved that season. It was the bomb. In my 2.5 year, it was very easy to grasp for my mind that was still trying to wrap itself around LD. True, it often turned into an example war and was TP-ish. However, I enjoyed the wide range of historical examples available. Not everyone was running the same applications (except the Rwandan Genocide). The values could be taken a step farther, too, if you wiggled outside the box. Three questions remain. First, is this a broad enough resolution to give us a healthy debate for a large portion of the debate season? Second, for those who competed in 2013-24, is this too similar to the mitigation resolution? Thirdly, do we want to have a very similar debate resolution to what we've had in the past? 
• The phrase ' to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals' was absolutely, completely ignored. We debated as if the resolution simply said 'The use of economic sanctions... (by the US)... is moral'. Why did I expect this? Because I was Prime Minister and that's exactly where I steered the debate.  Because once you acknowledge that phrase you open a whole new can of worms. It's what makes it much less Aff-slanted than one would originally think. Thankfully, the Opposition did not catch my purposeful omission. What if the U.S's foreign policy goals are totally selfish? What if they play favorites in the international community and start WWIII? What if in doing so it severely harms US citizens? Even if not, what if the US's policy goals give our citizens, or the environment, or a small group of wealthy Europeans, minimal benefits at the great cost of the starvation of people in a small, third-world country? Is that moral, even if our government's first priority is to it's citizens? A poor man has a moral obligation to feed his family before his neighbor, but if the man is ridiculously wealthy and the neighbor is poor, what then? But wait, doesn't even the poor man have a secondary obligation to his neighbor? Wait, when did I start talking about obligations??? Oh, no, watch out! Here comes the swimming pool analogy, and the goldfish analogy, and the Rwandan Genocide application, ahhhhhh! Just kidding. Mostly. In all seriousness, what makes this debate interesting and more broad is that phrase. It what's going to really spread out and deepen the battle ground. So your answer to the first question, I believe, is yes. Just don't let the Aff pull a fast one. This also makes the answer to the second question , regrettably, also 'yes'.
• Cuba was mentioned. A lot. 

Things that did not happen as I expected:

• The economic impact that this would have on the US economy was not heavily stressed. It wasn't really mentioned until the Opp Block and wasn't a major argument. This is because most of the US's sanctions are on countries that we barely rely on. Can you imagine if we put an embargo on China, though? The US's economy would be destroyed. This was brought up in the round. This could make this res even more fun, if your opponent lets you play around with the hypothetical.
• The moral vs. ethical debate wasn't touched on. This is some serious kritik ground for the Neg.
• It was argued by the Opp that this was a fact resolution. I have to admit, this threw me for a loop. After all, wasn't this a proposed LD topic? The judge didn't know that, however, and our Opponents took a really neat angle on it. It was something I hadn't considered before. A lot of complaints that this resolution is too TP-esq have been going around, but have we ever stopped to consider this may indeed be too Fact-esq? This was a common oppositional argument to the 2012-13 res (Resolved: Privacy is undervalued). Although I also really enjoyed that res, many agree it was a fact resolution disguised as a value resolution. Amongst the people I know, it was probably one of the least fondly remembered. I liked it because of its strong fact-value dual nature (it was true or false based on what you valued). This resolution seems to be quite similar.
• Because of this, common arguments of significance, 41%/59%, the resolution being a general statement, were all left out of the debate. Either it was true or it wasn't. These were heavily relied upon arguments during the mitigation season, and this may be what sets resolution #3 apart.

Overall, I still remain undecided and much more intrigued. That debate introduced me to new pros and cons for res #3. I hope this helps inform you as you consider your 2015-16 Stoa LD Vote. I'll have that Wildcard post out soon. :)

Thoughts on the Stoa 2015-16 Value Resolutions

I think I almost spazzed out of pure happiness when I found out the resolutions are out. Again, we're being asked to vote for two. This implies the dual resolution will return, or it will at least be voted upon.

1. Resolved: In art, form ought to be valued over content. 

Pros: 
This is a very simplistic resolution. Explaining the basis of your case should be made easy.

No previous bias. Unless your judge is a Art major, chances the judge won't have a preconceived opinion sitting in the back of their mind. You are working on your own merit, against your opponent and no one else, and the judge's opinions are a blank whiteboard for you to help fill. *fist pump*

Something new. The Stoa value resolution committee is right when they say we've been debating individualism vs. collectivism for quite awhile now. Not only is there an natural human bias towards individualism (self-preservation is instinctive) but the values have remained the same. How many rounds have I watched in the past four years where the values were some form of Individual Human Rights vs. General Welfare? Too many. I love seeing weird values, I love debating them, but with these past few res's I haven't been able to confidently use them.

Broad case abilities. Are we talking about paintings and sculptures? Music and poetry? Books and movies? How about public speaking and debating itself? Is presentation more important than logic? What about speech topic over the way it's delivered? What IS art exactly? Can I use graffiti as an example? What about drawing a mustache on my brother while he's asleep? (Shhh…that's MY illustration if this res goes through. Don't steal it :p)


Cons:
We are going to get sick of talking about art. This is true for any resolution. But for many people in the homeschool forensics community, art isn't at the top of our favorite conversation topics. Speech and debaters are notorious lovers of government and politics. Some people are going to get mad if this passes. This is where I differ. I love art. I'm putting this in cons, though, because I'm going to get sick of other people complaining. Shoot, I got sick of the TPers complaining that one season where all they got to talk about was fish and marine resources.

Not very value centric. Sooo much of this is going to be debated pre-value. People will be flinging RezA's at each other like monkeys have coconut fights. I like a nice RA to clarify, but I don't want the whole debate to hinge on it.

Definition wars will abound. I swear, every debater will at one point try to use the phrase, "What IS art?" with a goofy face, trying to be funny in their intro, only to be sucked into a debate about it. For some, definition debates are fun. I, personally, sit on the fence. As a newer debater I resented them because I could never win them. It seemed like a crazy definition was a built-in failsafe. Now I know better, and can have a lot more fun playing with definitions. But its not as fun for the judge to watch.

Two more notes:
There's a lot of Neg room here. (Neg room, leg room, get it?) Beware the Kritiks, the Balances, the Essentials, the everything else. A res about art is just begging for a Kritik. For some, this is a pro. For others, this is a con. It depends on how you like to debate.

This can be very philosophy based, if you let it be. We're going to see some very grounded pragmatic cases and some more idealistic cases. We're wandering out of our comfort zones of government and law. This means, if we want to tie something like art to something more concerned with the wellbeing of humans, we're going to do some digging. This can be absolute terrible fun and leaves rooms for argument over value links, which is one of my favorite things to argue. ( Example, art content = creator's intent = self expression = freedom of expression = self-actualization. Valuing form = narrow minded ness = constricting human expression. There's six different links you can work with there.) It can also mean a very complicated rounds based on intangible concepts that don't have much real-world application (read: judge impact). Logically fallacy textbooks will be dusted off. Again, for some this is a  pro and some this is a con.

2. Resolved: In formal education liberal arts ought to be valued above practical skills. 

Pros: 

"If Victor Hugo was correct in positing that the opening of a school was the closing of a prison, then the nature and content of formal education is a subject worth debating.".
New areas for value clash will replace the exhausted values of Liberty and Justice. For example, aesthetics, epistemology, and philology offer fresh new areas of study and ground to debate. Philosophers that will be important will include familiars like Plato, Aristotle, and Mill. For additional core reading debaters will benefit by reading the British empiricists: Berkeley, Locke, and Hume; scholastic philosophers, notably Thomas Aquinas; and the pragmatists: James and Dewey. This resolution will offer breadth and depth of argumentation.

The above quote is from the stoausa voting page. It points out three major pluses -

1.We get to research philosophy *huge fist pump* anyone who's heard my hour long lectures knows my favorite part of LD is talking philosophers.

2.New value clash, new values, new ground. This is going to be classic LDV, value-centric. People are going to breaking out their criterions and logical fallacy knowledge again. A breathe of fresh air.

3.Lots of depth, strong connections, grounded philosophy, and application to real human issues, which is something we don't get with the first resolution option. This means a huge judge impact.

Also, I just really had to quote this since Victor Hugo is my favorite author of all time.

Cons:
This would be the absolute ideal resolution. I'm not even kidding. Except for one thing. The judge impact I mentioned before? It's also a con of sorts.

All parents judges, educators, and coaches will be walking into the room with a gigantic pre-decided bias towards or against one side. This is a big issue in the homeschool world right now. I wish judge bias didn't exist. I wish people were perfect. But they aren't, and only the most creative debaters will get away with pleasing a judge with an opinion on the opposing side. This is the sole reason I voted against the immigration resolution last year. People will be running Balanced Negs not because that's what they believe in, but because its the only way to win.


3. Resolved: Developing countries ought to prioritize economic growth over environmental protection. 

Pros: 

More human issues. Poverty, the sovereignty of a nation, impact on future generations, the morality of abusing the environment. Therefore, there is again a good judge impact.

Little to no judge bias.

Cons:

Extremely Aff-sided. What the Aff will boil this down to is basically human welfare vs. environmental welfare. Once that is achieved, there is no more debate. If the phrase "developing countries" wasn't there, the debate might be more even-sided. That way we could talk about both well-developed countries and the newer, struggling ones.

Very application heavy. Debaters might get so distracted trying to out-apply their opponent that the round turns into an Individual Policy debate. This resolution reminds me of the international mitigation one we had a few years ago. Except the question of morality that serves as the LDV backbone is concerned not with humans and humans but humans and plants/animals.

4. Resolved: The use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals is moral. 

Pros: 

Debaters will get to address lots of logical issues such as whether the ends justify the means, causing people to suffer in order to suffocate an immoral government, whether choosing the lesser of two evils is a moral concept (sanctions > direction military action). Negs may even choose to echo our previous international mitigation res with the question, "is US involvement even necessary?"

Personally, economic sanctions is one of my favorite topics. If I'm being forced to talk politics, lets talk sanctions. I will also get to recycle my Human Rights case for Affirmative, which I realize is a con because most people hate using the same values over and over. But Human Rights is another one of my favorite topics, and there's a lots of room there.

There will be a strong, classic LDV, value clash. Debaters will really get to explore what it means to hold Peace over Economic Welfare, or Human Rights over Safety.

Because of the policy element and straightforward concepts, the resolution will be easier to grasp for first year LDers.

Little or no judge bias.

Cons:

We will have to depend on the logical issues and value clash to outweigh what will definitely be a application-heavy debate. When I said before debaters will get to "know what it means" to defend their value, I mean they will watch those decisions play out clearly on a wide field of examples. Which means we'll have to do a lot, even a near TP-level, of research. Unless you can find a good overarching value/logic theory that knocks all of that out and leaves us on a purely philosophical playing field. Which is exactly what I'll be doing, if this passes.

 It feels like a narrower version of the mitigation resolution. And just the fact that its a value resolution that contains the word "policy" scares me.

Also, what happens when the logical issues are clear away and the beaten path is being trod? We're either going to get creative or get bored. Choose your poison carefully.

Basic tried-and-true values are going to be used, and seasoned LDers aren't going to be challenged with new concepts.

Other notes:

This is the most "traditional" of all the resolutions. If change is daunting for you, this is probably the best resolution. One of the two government-focus, it is the only U.S. - focused. Some may think this is a pro, but I see it as a con. Either way, its something to keep in mind.

 If this resolution passes, we are going to have to get creative. We are going to have to step out of the box and look at things from a philosophical standpoint.

In conclusion,

For my part, I know I will be voting for the first resolution, and definitely not for the third. In essence, the second resolution is superior to all of them but becomes externally flawed once you take into account the current prejudice in the homeschool community.  That leaves the fourth, and as though it is not ideal, I'd rather debate sanctions than environmental issues. Whether I'll be voting for the second or forth as my second resolution remains to be seen. I'll be talking to some of my friends and fellow debaters and getting some more perspective.

I hoped this gave you guys some ideas and can help you weigh your own decision based on what you want to debate and how you want to debate it.

Next, I plan to write a post on the Wildcard options/OI change. Stay tuned ;)

We Go Together Like Ramalamalamakadingadadingadong

A.k.a my Last Tournament of the Year Post

The Corpus Christi Curtain Call is officially the last tournament of the year before NITOC. Thankfully, I have one more year before I graduate, so its not my last tournament ever. For some it is. And one year from now, I'll be graduating, too.

I've been thinking a lot about that lately. That for everybody there's going to come a time we have to move on from something we've fallen in love with. I think I can handle that. Its the idea of being separated from my friends that kills me.

The title of this post is a tribute to everybody's favorite Grease song that nobody can properly remember the lyrics to. It also accurately describes my friends and I.

I have friends in Texas, California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Colorado, and everywhere else because of speech and debate. But, especially, I have my best friends of all, which happen to be my club members.

We've worked together, competed with and against each other, gone to prom together, traveled across the US together, cried and laughed together, and pulled stupid pranks in a Sonic parking lot together.

If you came to this post looking for enlightenment or advice, wrong post. Because I'm completely at a loss.

However, if there's one thing I know, we go together like the lyrics of We Go Together. Speech and debate brings great people together, and once you take that away, we stay together. Because that's what friends do.

See you guys at Nationals!!!