NEW TOPIC LIST!!!

Maybe this isn't exactly a "Propose Resolutions" thread, but here it goes. The NFL has released its list of potential resolutions from Nov/Dec 2009 until Sept/Oct 2010. They are:

Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
Resolved: Records of an individual’s home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.

What do people think about them? Who votes to decide which ones are used?

I have mad love for "pharmaceutical patents" and "jury nullification." There are a lot of unique angles for people to go with on the patents topic. With the debate over health care, the use of generic medicines is becoming a hot topic as we figure out ways to limit health care costs. I would kind of dig that as a November/December topic.

The jury nullification resolution has been used, in some form, before. We debated it at NSD way back in 2007, and I remember that the topic literature was fairly broad despite the specificity of the topic.

Anything with nuclear weapons will be sick. The nukes debate with the "states ought not to possess" nukes topic would obviously be significantly different than the one we had on Jan/Feb last year. I'm feeling it.

Thus, the plan: The United States federal government should prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes.
I like the #1, but I do not like the word obligation in there. Also, having to defend pursuit AND disclosure gives negs too much ground, if you ask me.
I like patents, housing, and nukes. Housing seems really close to the old health care topic.
I'm more or less indifferent to the rest of them, but I need help figuring out which ones would be conducive to plans.

Old wrote:I'm more or less indifferent to the rest of them, but I need help figuring out which ones would be conducive to plans.

I haven't thought about it extensively (obviously since they just came out) but I'd say ones where you could (not should, but could) run a plan:
I guess Previous Administrations
Pharmecutical
Economic sanctions
Nukes (which I've heard is an awesome topic. It's basically the same as the 2001 TOC topic)
Housing, maybe...

I really like economic sanctions and nukes. Jury null could be good (and I think the NFL really wants to get that one in there, it's been on the last two lists I think.) Immunization could be interesting, especially if people could find some good lit on the autism disad (although i'm not sure it exists...). Search and seizure would suck because of all the people who would run non-contextual definitions of "unreasonable" and say the rez is tautological.

I think that Sanctions and Nukes are probably two of the sickest topics that have come out in a while. I really really really hope that one of the two (preferably Sanctions) is the Jan/Feb topic. That would be awesome

Plans would work on anything but Jury Null and the DNA topic.

poneill wrote:I think that Sanctions and Nukes are probably two of the sickest topics that have come out in a while. I really really really hope that one of the two (preferably Sanctions) is the Jan/Feb topic. That would be awesome

I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I don't like about them is the "ought not," which can sometimes make for some awkward rounds. Other than that, they're awesome topics.

Since most of the popular topics are phrased in the negative (i.e. ought not), I must wonder where the K ground goes. Assuming there's not a presumption argument in the AC, and the neg runs some K, what happens?

AFF: states shouldn't own nukes because prolif bad
NEG: statism K with an anarchy alternative

Obviously, the neg isn't proving owning nukes is desirable, but still takes out an assumption the AC makes. Who wins? Assuming the negs alternative is net beneficial, but doesn't directly prove nukes are good, what happens?
I'm pretty sure you could critique the resolutions on the aff, but you'd have to phrase specific links to the resolution, which is, in my opinion, harder than linking to your opponent's case.

Old wrote:Since most of the popular topics are phrased in the negative (i.e. ought not), I must wonder where the K ground goes. Assuming there's not a presumption argument in the AC, and the neg runs some K, what happens?

AFF: states shouldn't own nukes because prolif bad
NEG: statism K with an anarchy alternative

Obviously, the neg isn't proving owning nukes is desirable, but still takes out an assumption the AC makes. Who wins? Assuming the negs alternative is net beneficial, but doesn't directly prove nukes are good, what happens?
I'm pretty sure you could critique the resolutions on the aff, but you'd have to phrase specific links to the resolution, which is, in my opinion, harder than linking to your opponent's case.

Ummm how about the perm (if we decide that's aff ground) or Case solves K? I'm fairly sure any statism author you can find would say that disarming our nukes is an exception to the generic "you use the state" link. Or at least, that's how I won my aff rounds at harker on the nukes topic (i read a sick disarm AC that had some hilariously awesome answers to T).

You vote neg if the Neg wins that the Alt is net beneficial to the Aff, absent theory args stating otherwise. There's no reason the neg has to prove that nukes are good in the round, and this would be showing that disarmament is bad (although I'd say that anyone who things there is an actual link here is asinine) which is sufficient to vote neg.

Presumption would go aff if it wasn't clear which course of action is net beneficial. Presumption is the idea that change is bad unless proven otherwise (so if you have bureaucracy good ev, you could impact turn the standard presumption argument in order to flip it). In this case, The aff is proposing change, so presumption would go neg on the topic assuming no CP or K alt is read. This is because the aff has a prima facie burden to prove that there is a reason their specific form of change is desirable (for policy buffs, this is the origin of Stock issues - the aff was expected to present a topical course of action that overcame a barrier in the squo that fixed some problem that existed). However, since the neg runs a K alt, they've conceded that change is good, thus presumption flips. Also, Anarchy is a lot bigger change than disarm, so that's another way to resolve it.

poneill wrote:

Ummm how about the perm (if we decide that's aff ground) or Case solves K? I'm fairly sure any statism author you can find would say that disarming our nukes is an exception to the generic "you use the state" link. Or at least, that's how I won my aff rounds at harker on the nukes topic (i read a sick disarm AC that had some hilariously awesome answers to T).

You vote neg if the Neg wins that the Alt is net beneficial to the Aff, absent theory args stating otherwise. There's no reason the neg has to prove that nukes are good in the round, and this would be showing that disarmament is bad (although I'd say that anyone who things there is an actual link here is asinine) which is sufficient to vote neg.

The statism K was just a generic example. We can talk about a cap K or whatever; it doesn't really matter. Let's assume the permutation is impossible, given the strength of the link. I know if the alt is net beneficial then you vote neg in a comparative world paradigm. What about in a truth testing one? The neg doesn't really prove that owning nukes is good, just that using the state to disarm is bad. If the aff is true, then states shouldn't own nuclear weapons, but the K just proves that states shouldn't exist. I hope that was clear enough. I'm really not sure how I would resolve this as a judge, and this confusion makes me apprehensive about running critiques on these kinds of topics.

Old wrote:[
The statism K was just a generic example. We can talk about a cap K or whatever; it doesn't really matter. Let's assume the permutation is impossible, given the strength of the link. I know if the alt is net beneficial then you vote neg in a comparative world paradigm. What about in a truth testing one? The neg doesn't really prove that owning nukes is good, just that using the state to disarm is bad. If the aff is true, then states shouldn't own nuclear weapons, but the K just proves that states shouldn't exist. I hope that was clear enough. I'm really not sure how I would resolve this as a judge, and this confusion makes me apprehensive about running critiques on these kinds of topics.

I have a couple of questions:

1. how does one determine presumption in a TT paradigm absent the judge having a paradigmatic viewpoint on it (a la Adam Nelson) or a theory argument? In a CW paradigm it's fairly clear because there exists a squo, and a generally accepted viewpoint of how presumption can shift.

2. How does this K negate the validity of the AC? I feel like there is not much K ground on the disarm topic because Critical Theory is very solidly liberal, which has a clear position on this topic (aff). Unless you're making some sort of masking link, there's not going to be a solid link.

TT has neg presumption, that's why skepticism work there.

arurra wrote:TT has neg presumption, that's why skepticism work there.

Ok well i've never understood if it shifts when the topic is negatively worded or not. Anyways I have no idea how to evaluate the round because I don't know what impact "prolif bad" has under a TT paradigm. The K that was mentioned seems to have the same issue, imo

poneill wrote:
I have a couple of questions:

1. how does one determine presumption in a TT paradigm absent the judge having a paradigmatic viewpoint on it (a la Adam Nelson) or a theory argument? In a CW paradigm it's fairly clear because there exists a squo, and a generally accepted viewpoint of how presumption can shift.

2. How does this K negate the validity of the AC? I feel like there is not much K ground on the disarm topic because Critical Theory is very solidly liberal, which has a clear position on this topic (aff). Unless you're making some sort of masking link, there's not going to be a solid link.

1.Negs get presumption, but I'm not really sure since the K might change the presumption for the same reasons it does in a comparative world paradigm.
2. It doesn't negate the validity of the AC which is why I don't know which side wins in this circumstance. Aff proves the state should get rid of nukes. Neg proves we should get rid of the state. This doesn't disprove that the state shouldn't get rid of its nukes, though.

These complications make it hard for me to really advocate truth testing. CW just seems so much simpler.

Old wrote:
1.Negs get presumption, but I'm not really sure since the K might change the presumption for the same reasons it does in a comparative world paradigm.
2. It doesn't negate the validity of the AC which is why I don't know which side wins in this circumstance. Aff proves the state should get rid of nukes. Neg proves we should get rid of the state. This doesn't disprove that the state shouldn't get rid of its nukes, though.

These complications make it hard for me to really advocate truth testing. CW just seems so much simpler.

I think the ballot goes aff in a TT world because the neg doesn't disprove the validity of the resolution or of the AC. In CW the judge might vote aff on presumption, they might weigh impacts (which could go either way depending on how hte K debate plays out), or the judge might simply say there's no way in hell the aff uniquely links to the K and vote aff.

Has anyone debated economic sanctions at UNT? I heard that is the topic they are debating. Does anyone have any thoughts on it?

JohnnyFontane wrote:Has anyone debated economic sanctions at UNT? I heard that is the topic they are debating. Does anyone have any thoughts on it?

I'm pretty sure UNT hasn't started yet.

NSD is debating nukes both weeks. The debate is significantly different than those we saw on the Jan/Feb 2008 topic, but I think it has a lot of potential. Kids are figuring out how to deal with framing the round given the lack of context, so I think the debates are improving.

Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.
-Um, Bush much? But I guess this is somewhat ok. I don't like how it is worded "Governments have," meaning that the debate will be more about if the governments actually have the burden or not, not if they should have an obligation; I think should should be put in the res.

Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.
-This is a weird one. I personally haven't heard of an instance of this happening.

Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
-I like this one a lot. I've already got tons of arguments going on in my head for this one. I really hope this one is chosen.

Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.
-Another pretty good one. I have a feeling there will be competing definitions of "highly indebted," which could be really annoying.

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
-I'd bet money this is going to be the Jan/Feb topic...the topic for those months is always something about foreign nations and more government related debate. I don't like this one, to be honest.

Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.
-First health care, and now this?! This one isn't terrible, but this has a built-in win for the negative. Seriously.

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
-Pretty good one. I already know how this is going to be argued though.....

Resolved: Records of an individual’s home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
-I'm running panopticism on this. For either side. If this gets to be a topic. Also, anti PATRIOT Act much?

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
-I'd rather not debate this one. Frankly, we had a more wordy version of this topic last Jan/Feb.

Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.
-I definitely don't like this one. Seems kind of vague.

Re: Volk

I totally disagree about the nukes topic. Just because both topics discuss "nukes" doesn't mean they are the same thing. In fact, they are very, very different. The last nukes topic was very policy-ish. It had an actor, it laid out exactly what the plan would be. On the other hand, the new nukes topic is very, very abstract given its lack of any context, actor, etc.

The debates would be very different than the ones people had in 2008. Don't write off this topic because it would a similar concept.

Re: Volk

highly indebted poor countries is a (now antiquated) term of art. Look at stuff on the IMF and World Bank websites for info about what qualifies a country to be a hipc (theres like 40ish of them i think).

And why don't you like economic sanctions? This issue is at the heart of a lot of human rights and general foreign policy discussion.

Re: JonnyFountane

I have thought about the new nukes topic some and after hearing from people at NSD who debated it, the lack of a context/actor makes it a very difficult topic. The aff isn't locked into defending Disarmament which really destroys a lot of the good ground on this topic for the negative (CPs about taking nukes down from active launch are no longer guaranteed a link, DAs to rearmament/terrorists getting nukes during the disarm process, etc are now likely to be "no linked"). I think it is a very good topic nonetheless, but I would have rather the topic said either "The Us ought not possess nuclear weapons" or "States ought disarm their nuclear weapons". As a preempt: these CPs/DAs aren't just crazy policy arguments, they're what's really discussed and why we still have nukes.

I havent really read this thread but the nukes topic is the shit. One big spark or wipeout debate waiting to happen.

JamesM wrote: One big spark or wipeout debate waiting to happen.

...sounds wonderful.
/s

W. Marble wrote:

JamesM wrote: One big spark or wipeout debate waiting to happen.

...sounds wonderful.

Exactly.

Lol. Really?

I am definitely hoping spark doesn't catch on if this topic is chosen. Those who tried to stick with wipeout or spark on the last nukes topic had a rough time, so perhaps LD isn't ready for that development.