Shattering The Lens
A Thoughtful Look Into ThingsArchive for Public Forum
Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
Interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season? Visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
I don’t know that I could have thought of a more boring topic. This will quickly devolve into repetitive, monotonous debating with student reiterating the same facts over and over again. The resolution also provides you with the framework you need, so it doesn’t give students much room to come up with creative insightful arguments. It isn’t even worth complaining to the NFL anymore. They have demonstrated their incessant desire to put out terrible topics. With that in mind, let’s start the analysis 
Definitions
Continuation – This means to continue something i.e. not stop it. I don’t see any abuse potential or crafty definition approaches with this one. It’s straightforward
U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America – Debaters will need a very intimate understanding of these policies. They will need to know the specific laws and initiatives that are in place and the particular content of those law. An historical knowledge of past policies and lessons learned in Latin will also be integral to a student’s ability to effectively debate the point.
Frameworks
So here’s the thing about this resolution, you are only permitted to use the framework of a cost benefit analysis i.e. you have to state the harms and benefits of these policies, and you have to argue that one outweighs the other depending upon which side you’re on. If you are on the Con, you must argue either that the policies do more good than harm, or that the good and harm are equal.
Impacting explicitly will be crucial for this resolution. It will not be acceptable to just list out harms and benefits. The debater needs to argue that one outweighs the other.
As a result, instead of doing a framework analysis, I’m going to talk about some potential harms and benefits you can discuss.
Costs
1. Illegal Immigration – There is a demonstrable link between drug policies and illegal immigration. Some argue that these policies promote such immigration, while others argue that it mitigates it. Nobody, however, talks about whether illegal immigration is a harm or a benefit. So do your due diligence and look up some studies that correlate anti-drug policies and illegal immigration. Be sure to talk about the actual impact of illegal immigration and whether or not it is a harm or a benefit. There is an argument to be made that illegal immigration has a positive impact on the United States.
2. There Is No Benefit – Some experts contend that there really isn’t a point. The U.S. is dumping money into a bottomless pit. As U.S. drug agencies try to enforce their policies, cartels become more innovative. They are entrenched within society, giving them a distinct advantage over U.S. enforcement. Governments are unwilling to cooperate with us because of widespread corruption. The tide cannot be stemmed, so why bother have the current vigorous policies that we do?
3. Life Cost of Law Enforcement – Drug enforcement requires a tremendous commitment from law enforcement agents involved in the processes. Often times, one operation can require a decade of embedded commitment. These policies have led to an incredible loss of life from law enforcement without yielding any comparable benefit.
Benefits
1. Reduction of Drug Influx Into U.S. – Anti-drug policies have demonstrably led to a decrease in drugs crossing our borders. Trade and sale in the United States has decreased. This has had positive economic effects as well as a decrease in drug related violence in high drug traffic areas.
2. More Jobs in Law Enforcement – The mere existence of these drug policies requires a large number of people. These openings provide opportunities for many people, particularly in a time when jobs are scarce. This is a good counter to the point which comments on the commitment required by law enforcement. Some people are looking for such a commitment that lends itself to consistent and reliable income.
3. The Benefit of Existence – The policies exist, which in itself is the largest benefit. The resolution proposes a discontinue of the current policies, which would be far more catastrophic. So whatever costs we have incurred need to be absorbed because the harms of discontinuing the policies would be much worse.
I know I didn’t have much for this topic, but there really isn’t much to talk about. As I mentioned, the arguments will be repetitive, and because of the advent of popular briefs, the evidence will likely be repetitive as well.
Good luck!
Resolved: The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.
Interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season? Visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.
Why? Why do these topics continue to get worse and worse? I thought the new generations of kids were supposed to be getting dumber, not the adults! AGH! I mean, really though, who’s voting for these topics? How do they win? Who writes them? There is clearly some shady conspiracy going on to turn debate into a vacuum of nonsense. Ugh, I guess we just have to deal with it. So let’s do it.
Definitions
1. U.S. Government - We all know what the U.S. government is. People will inevitably try to make a distinction between the state and national government. In reality, it’s actually irrelevant. The resolution is asking you to argue the principle of the thing, not for a specific level of government.
2. Require - When the government requires its citizens to do something, that means it imposes some sort of punishment for not doing such thing. The content of this punishment is irrelevant to the resolution. You can assume that the government will not execute people for not having healthcare, and don’t let people try to get abusive with this. Again, the resolution is asking you to talk about the principle of requiring people to have health insurance rather than the actual content of what that would look like.
3. Citizens - We all also know what a citizen is. Being a citizen entails a legal status, not just that a person lives in the U.S. The reason the resolution uses this word is so that the Con doesn’t have to support illegal immigrants being required to have health insurance.
4. Health Insurance - Health insurance refers to the concept of a person paying a certain amount into a pool, and the pool pays costs for medical care and/or treatment if you should need it. Again, the form this takes does not matter. This resolution is not about the government providing universal healthcare. It’s about the government punishing people who do not have health insurance, like they do with car insurance.
Potential Positions
Con
1. Health Insurance is Good - It’s a fact that people who have health insurance end up better off. If there preventive examinations and consultations are paid for, people are more like to go in and get checked up. Requiring people to have health insurance will improve the overall health of the country. The long term result is that less and less people will actually have health associated costs, so healthcare spending will decrease.
2. A Health Insurance Requirement Stops People From Being Stupid - There is a large portion of the population that doesn’t get health insurance for reasons other than not being able to afford it. These people are jeopardizing their lives. If the situation were ever to arise that they would need medical care, they would not be able to get it because of an inability to pay. There’s a reason the government requires people to have auto insurance, and the reason reason holds true for health insurance as well.
Pro
1. The Requirement Won’t Have Any Significant Impact - People who don’t have health insurance will not be suddenly motivated to get it because of some government requirement. They will still abuse the emergency care system as they always have. A requirement doesn’t suddenly make health insurance affordable, nor does it motivate people to pay for something they don’t feel they need.
2. Individual Rights - Every person has a right not to have health insurance. By not getting health insurance, I am only endangering my life and nobody else’s. Therefore, I should have the ability to forego health insurance if I should choose. It’s not the government’s place to tell me how to manage my life.
I hope this helps you get started.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
If you’re interested in personal debate coaching, take a look at my Debate Coaching Services page.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
This topic is awful, so much so that I didn’t even feel like finding a witty cartoon to put in this post. The topic doesn’t even ask you to assess the merits of of the ruling, but the impact it has had on the election process. Enough time hasn’t passed for you to have adequate evidence to address the impact, nor is it possible to draw any sort of reasonable causal distinction. This is going to lead to terrible off topic debates. To everyone who voted for this topic, wtf were you thinking?
Ok, with that ranting introduction over, let’s actually talk about this nonsense.
Definitions
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - This is the only important definition in this resolution. Everything else is straightforward. What did the ruling do? There’s actually a lot to it, but the gist is that it allows for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money toward convincing people to vote for a particular candidate. My advice to you is to actually read the entire opinion available here.
Potential Case Positions
Pro
1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates’ positions and ideas.
2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as “buying votes” for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.
Con
1. Nothing Has Changed - There is no evidence to suggest that the election process is different in any noticeable way. Unions and corporations aren’t doing anything differently than they have done in the past, and voter allegiances have not dramatically shifted.
2. More Political Activity – Avenues for political education and awareness have become more effective since the removal of funding limits. The ruling has enable previously silent interests to become more active, which has allowed for a more vibrant political landscape, which is always a good thing.
I hope this helps give you some kind of start for this horrendous topic. Good luck finding evidence and analyzing it.
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.
Wow, what is with all these terrible topics? The vagueness in this topic alone should have been enough for the NFL to reject it, particularly for a PF topic. Not to mention, this topic is horrendously weighted for the Con. Like all the other crap, however, we’re stuck with it, so let’s get down to business.
Important Terms and Definitions
The United States – Don’t let anyone tell you that this refers to anything other than the federal government. That’s what we’re talking about, not state governments.
Should – This is the crux of your case. You must understand how to determine what a government should prioritize, and you must use that understanding to build your contentions.
Prioritize – If you’re on the pro, here is the scenario for you: You have to pick between tax increases and spending cuts. You think tax increases are better. Prove it. This is what prioritization means, end of story.
Tax Increases and Spending Cuts - These terms are so vague. Where are we cutting spending? What does the tax increase look like? The terribad phrasing here not only precludes that all tax increases/spending are equal, but it also asks you to determine a philosophical difference as opposed to a practical one. Has the NFL forgotten that this is PF? As far as a definition is concerned, we all know what tax increases and spending cuts are. Your job is to understand how they manifest in particular segments of the economy (defense, welfare systems, healthcare, energy, etc…) In your case, I would advise against going into specifics regarding particular sectors, but be prepared for abusive arguments which do such things.
Potential Case Positions
Pro
1. Efficiency of Tax Increases - A government’s priorities ought to be determined by what is the most efficient option for accomplishing its goals. Tax increases are more efficient than spending cuts. Pragmatically speaking, they are easier to push through congress because they are not subject to as much quibbling as spending reform. Taxes are the most direct for of revenue for the federal government, and the rich can definitely afford to pay more in taxes.
2. Effectiveness of Tax Increases – A government should do what is most effective in accomplishing its goals. While spending cuts may help us save money, they do not allow us to direct funds toward new initiatives which will help rebuild our economy. The new educational and healthcare initiatives which are now being put into place require money.
Con
1. Tax Increases are Unnecessary - We spend more on defense than the next 27 countries combined. We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, and we’re in the top 10 per capita spending on education. We clearly don’t need more money. We need to spend it more wisely. If we fixed our government programs and allocated money more appropriately, increased taxes would be unnecessary.
2. Tax Increases Harm Small Business – This is a fairly obvious point. If we increase taxes, it makes it more difficult for small businesses to operate. Small businesses are a large driving for economic growth and success, and we really shouldn’t hinder them.
3. Spending Cuts are More Effective - Spending cuts don’t happen often, but when they do, they show remarkable results. The $200 billion decrease in military spending had an immediate positive impact on the economy that few people talk about. Harlem Children’s Zone is another great example of how managed spending can still yield good results and outcomes. Throwing money at problems doesn’t fix them. If stop spending as much money, it forces us to evaluate how to spend it most effectively.
This should be good to get you started. As always, feel free to post comments and such.
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
What is this nonsense? I cannot remember a more terribad PF resolution in recent memory, except maybe the one about NBA uniforms. EFF! Regardless of my feelings, however, it’s what we’re stuck with, so let’s break it down.
Nouns: Developed countries, moral obligation, effects, climate change
Verbs: have, mitigate
Definitions
Developed countries – Do not fuss over this definition. We all have an understanding of what developed countries are, and we can all list examples of them. The purpose of specifying developed is to avoid the economic/ability argument that the country just doesn’t have the resources to address climate change. Countries like the U.S., UK, China, etc… all have the ability to tackle the effects of climate change. We need to address whether or not they have a moral obligation to do so.
Mitigate - This is a tricky term. What precisely does it mean to mitigate the effects of climate change? There are a number of ways to do this. You can start green initiatives, or you can just find a way to make polar bears and ice caps. I know there will be a lot of quibbling over what mitigation entails, but I admonish you not to fall into that trap. The resolution does not want you to focus on the method. Mitigating the effects of climate change means instituting environmentally conscious economic policies and enforcing them, simple and straight forward.
Moral Obligation - This is the crux of the case, and it will not be addressed in your definitions. Rather, your case needs to develop an understanding of where governmental moral obligations come from and precisely why this dictates a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. This is very difficult to do in PF because you only have 4 minutes and no overt structure requirement like LD.
Case Positions
Pro
1. Protection of the People - Climate change poses and drastic and direct threat to every population. Its effects impact weather safety, food quality, and even resource competition. A government’s primary moral obligation is to protect its people from threats, foreign and domestic. If the government does not do its part to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is falling short of its main obligation
2. Humanitarian Obligations - Developed nations have a moral obligation to contribute to prosperity across the globe. It is incumbent upon those who have more to aid those who are less fortunate. Peter Senger goes on endlessly about this. Climate change has been proven to lead to a number of conflicts which have escalated into tremendous violence and oppression. If developed nations address climate change, it will bring us close to a peaceful society.
Con
1. Climate Change Poses no Direct Threat – Climate change does not pose any significant or tangible threat to human populations. The scientific reality is that, as humans, we are more than capable of adjusting with the climate. The polar bear lovers will try and make you believe that melting ice caps and such threaten your livelihood. This just isn’t true. As such, governments have no obligation to address climate change because a government’s obligations are primarily to its people.
2. Climate Change Policies Violate the Free Market - When it comes to economics, developed nations have a primary obligation to promote free market systems because those systems demonstrably result in better outcomes. Green policies are a direct violation of free markets. Not only does this violate the government’s obligations, but it also sets a bad precedent for developing nations. These other nations cannot develop with green policies as they just do not have the resources to sustain them. If the developed nations decide to introduce international green initiatives, it may actually end up damaging the global economy.
Good luck!
