I Give Away My Strategy For High School Policy Debate During The 2013-2014 Debate Season.

High School students who compete in policy debate will be debating the following resolution from now until the final round of the National Forensics League National Tournament in June 2014:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

I can't speak for the rest of South Dakota's debate coaches, but my young'uns have had few problems finding affirmative and negative evidence about Cuba and Mexico. Venezuela has been a tougher nut to crack. Yesterday, I discovered my negative strategy for any case about Venezuela. My young'uns are going to run the Spider-Man Violence Kritik.

The Link (in policy debate, one must capitalize every element of the argument) will be plan increases economic engagement toward Venzuela. The Internal Links will be economic engagement will require advertising; advertising relies of pop culture; superheroes are hot pop culture properties; Spider-Man is one of the hottest superhero icons. The Impact comes from the following card: (For those uninitiated in high school policy debate, the bolded and underlined portions of the card constitute the evidence the students will actually read.)

Tag: Spider-Man causes violence in Venezuela.

Citation: Melrose, Kevin. "Venezuelan president blames Spider-Man for nation’s violence." Robot 6. Comic Book Resources, 20 09 2013. Web. 21 Sep. 2013. .

OK, so it’s primarily Spider-Man causing the problems. But can we blame the wall-crawler for the horrible violence plaguing an entire country? Let’s ask Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whose nation saw 16,000 murders in 2012, and another 3,400 in the first quarter of this year.

In a new interview with the Bolivian newspaper La Opinión, Maduro said there’s a correlation between youth violence and the idolization of superheroes — it contributes to a “factory of anti-values,” apparently — a connection he made while he and his wife were watching Spider-Man 3.

“This kid, at 14 years old, carries a 9mm with a mind filled by thousands of hours of shows where people are killed,” he said. “I start to think how many thousands of hours of violence that kid will have consumed, in the end, stimulated by consumerism and violence when he grabs a 9 mm and goes to kill. [...] That’s the trouble, from the beginning until the end there are more and more dead,” he said. “And that’s one of the series small children love most … because it’s attractive, it’s from comics that are attractive, the figure, the colors and movements … so much so that we finished watching it at four in the morning.”

Our Alternative will be to reject the Affirmative until Venezuela is able to develop its own superhero genre based on historical Latin American liberators such as Simon Bolivar or the most famous 20th Century opponent of imperialism and violence Gandhi.

Melrose provides another card to give the kritik an added advantage.

Tag: Rejecting Aff Will Preserve Important Venezuelan Historical And Spiritual Connections

Citation: Melrose, Kevin. "Venezuelan president blames Spider-Man for nation’s violence." Robot 6. Comic Book Resources, 20 09 2013. Web. 21 Sep. 2013. .

Before J. Jonah Jameson orders that special edition of the Daily Bugle, it’s worth pointing out that Maduro has also claimed the spirit of his late predecessor Hugo Chávez spoke to him through a little bird to say he’s doing a fine job running the country.

Clearly, increasing economic engagement with Venezuela will destroy that nation's spiritual roots and cause it to descend into spiral of violence as kids seek to emulate Spider-Man.

Our format may not quite follow that of a traditional kritik, but our cards and story are solid. I'm pretty sure my young'uns who don't know this blog exists will be angry I gave away their best argument when I tell them on Monday.

I Can't Wait To Hear These Scenarios When I Judge Policy Debate This Weekend

I love listening to disaster scenarios that high school policy debaters run.  This one will be new:

 This one is based on a classic:

SCOTUS, High School Debate, And Philosophy Without A License

I don't know enough about health care to comment on the larger issues in the recent Supreme Court Affordable Care Act ruling.  This Jan Crawford analysis troubles me, however.  Crawford reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Changing one's mind is not a bad thing unless one changes for the wrong reasons.  Crawford reports that Roberts may have changed his vote because of popular opinion, a wrong reason if ever there was one.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

On the other hand, the conservative dissent seems to indicate some unbecoming pique:

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

 Toward the article's end, Crawford writes:

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

Perhaps it's the debate coach perspective, but the refusal to debate in person or in the opinions frustrates me.  As a coach, I tell my students that moral relativism is a discussion stopper.

…I can imagine someone shrugging, 'Well that's just your opinion.'  It is curious how popular this response is in moral discussions.  For notice that it is a conversation stopper rather than a move in the intended conversation.  It is not a reason for or against the proffered opinion, nor is it an invitation for the speaker's reasons, nor any kind of persuasion that it is better to think something else. –(Simon Blackburn, Being Good, 27-28)

At the governing level, the past two presidencies have both expanded the power of the office to the point that the person holding the office is closer to an emperor than a president.  One does not debate a monarch.  Congress has become more dysfunctional than it has been at any time in my memory.  What passes for debate on the floors of Congress is not worth the name.  Now, the third branch of government seems to be falling prey to a cult of personality and reputation, and the members refuse to engage in the conflict of ideas.

Apparently, I'm going to have to begin telling students that both moral relativism and absolute political certainty unnecessarily preclude debate.

Update:  The original post incorrectly identified Jan Crawford as Jan Brewer. I also apparently thought I was in England and used the British spelling of license in the original title. I was sloppy and apologize.

Shh! Don't Tell Anyone; High School Students May Learn Some Things That Won't Be On The Test

The National Forensics League has released ten potential Lincoln Douglas debate topics that students will debate during the course of the 2012-2013 school year.  NFL member schools will vote on the topics; five will be chosen for September/October, November/December, January/February, March/April and the NFL National Tournament in June 2013.  Individual Students will have to develop a value based position to write separate cases to affirm and negate the resolution

Lincoln Douglas Topic List for 2012 – 2013

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups.

Resolved: United States Supreme Court justices should be subject to term limits.

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Resolved: On balance, the privatization of civil services serves the public interest.

Resolved: On balance, labor unions in the United States are beneficial.

Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

Lest the policy debaters accuse me of neglecting the work that some will be starting next week, the the policy resolution for the entire 2012-2013 school year is:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

Two person teams will develop affirmative containing a plan and negative positions on the topic.

The testing uber alles proponents may not like find these topics to their liking.  After all, it's probably impossible to develop a bubble test to answer these questions.  It's also hard to write a test that allows students both to affirm and negate the questions.

STEM fans like Governor Daugaard and Melody Schopp might take umbrage at the fact that many of the topics can't be answered with the pat answer: "use more technology."

Both the extreme testers and the STEM-will-save-everyone advocates will be hard pressed to explain that these topics won't help students survive in the "real world."  Right now, these bureaucrats probably think that if they ignore the facts high school debate will go away.  Of course, they governors and secretaries of education can do a bit more than hope;they can just pass laws like HB 1234 and the testing regime that comes with it.  If that effort fails, they can just cut education funding again.  In a single party state like South Dakota, the majority can do both without any debate whatsoever.