Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on these topics? Version 2.0

tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2018 3:30:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To quote version 1.0: "I'm curious to know whether people on DDO think these are balanced/fair/good resolutions for debate. So I'm not asking for your arguments or personal views on the issue, just whether you think these are good resolutions that are interesting/balanced."

World Schools Debating Championship

These were the resolutions at the World Schools Debating Championship this year, held last week at Zagreb, Croatia -- it's considered, typically, the most prestigious international HS-level debating tournament.

The style of topics is that it has weird starts like "this house would" (which means "[a particular actor, usually the government] should"), "this house believes that" (which really means nothing and could be deleted), "this house regrets [x]" (which means "[x] does/has done/did more harm than good"), "this house supports [y]" (which means either "[y] is desirable" or "[a certain policy should be implemented]"), and so on.

Round 1: This house would require professional sports teams to be owned by their local communities instead of individuals or corporations.

Round 2: This house opposes the development of lethal autonomous weapons.

Round 3: This house regrets the widespread belief that motherhood is a rewarding experience.

Round 4: This house believes that countries should allow non-citizen migrant workers to vote in local and national elections.

Round 5: This house would implement a system of school vouchers.

Round 6: This house would not allow sellers and service providers to advertise their products beyond providing information and images that reveal technical product details.

Round 7: This house regrets the Belt and Road Initiative.

Round 8: This house regrets the rise of call-out culture.

Octofinal: A world with no belief in the afterlife would be preferable.

Quarterfinal: Developing countries should not allow foreign entities (individuals or corporations) to own land within their territory.

Semifinal: Rehabilitation should be the only consideration in criminal sentencing.

Final: The West should end all arms sales and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

(The Pro team's plan in the final was that military cooperation would resume if Saudi Arabia (1) ended blockades and atrocities in Yemen and (2) ended state-sponsored terrorism, obviously more detailed than that, but those were the essential prongs to the plan.)

United States Universities Debating Championship

(1) The US should abolish congressional districts and instead implement statewide elections for congressional representatives.

(2) Governments should ban all technologies that make real-time police information about ongoing crimes available to the public.

(3) Governments should ban charities that seek out women and give them money in exchange for sterilization or taking long-term birth control.

(4) It would benefit the Cuban government to publicly criticize the legacy of Fidel Castro and end all public celebration of him (e.g. statues, national holidays, favorable school curricula, etc.).

(5) A world without formalized art criticism (of visual art, literature, poetry, theater, film, etc.) would be preferable.

(6) The US should regulate social media companies as utilities.

(7) Countries should ban the purchase of property by foreign citizens in cities with rapidly rising housing prices in cases where the property is not the primary residence.

(8) The Democratic Party should push for increased globalization (e.g. free trade, open borders).

(9) The International Monetary Fund should pay reparations to countries where IMF structural adjustment policies can be demonstrated to have done economic harm.

(10) Right to work laws in the United States are desirable.

(11) The US should cede regional hegemony in East Asia to China.

(12) The LGBTQ+ movement should take no stance on whether being LGBTQ+ is a choice.

(13) Society should regret the popularization of the idea that one's identity should determine the credibility of one's perspective on social justice issues.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
thett3
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 2:10:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2018 3:30:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
To quote version 1.0: "I'm curious to know whether people on DDO think these are balanced/fair/good resolutions for debate. So I'm not asking for your arguments or personal views on the issue, just whether you think these are good resolutions that are interesting/balanced."

World Schools Debating Championship

These were the resolutions at the World Schools Debating Championship this year, held last week at Zagreb, Croatia -- it's considered, typically, the most prestigious international HS-level debating tournament.

The style of topics is that it has weird starts like "this house would" (which means "[a particular actor, usually the government] should"), "this house believes that" (which really means nothing and could be deleted), "this house regrets [x]" (which means "[x] does/has done/did more harm than good"), "this house supports [y]" (which means either "[y] is desirable" or "[a certain policy should be implemented]"), and so on.

Round 1: This house would require professional sports teams to be owned by their local communities instead of individuals or corporations.

No opinion


Round 2: This house opposes the development of lethal autonomous weapons.

Con, but only because sadly not doing so means being outcompeted by a country willing to go there. Arms races are generally a race to the bottom. If I could somehow enforce a worldwide ban, I would


Round 3: This house regrets the widespread belief that motherhood is a rewarding experience.

Umm...wow. Very, very, very, VERY strongly con. Yeah womyn (and men) are definitely more happy working in a cubicle for some soulless corporation than fulfilling their biological imperative lol


Round 4: This house believes that countries should allow non-citizen migrant workers to vote in local and national elections.

No. Importation of voters is already a problem with immigration ("electing a new people") imagine if Sheldon Adelson can fill his casinos with migrant workers and tell them they're all getting fired if they don't vote for Trump (this would be very easy to verify by housing them in the same area and checking precinct results)


Round 5: This house would implement a system of school vouchers.

no opinion


Round 6: This house would not allow sellers and service providers to advertise their products beyond providing information and images that reveal technical product details.

seems dumb tbh but no strong opinion


Round 7: This house regrets the Belt and Road Initiative.

I don't know what this is


Round 8: This house regrets the rise of call-out culture.

Pro. Let he without sin throw the first stone (of course people often forget the "now go and sin no more" part of this story)


Octofinal: A world with no belief in the afterlife would be preferable.

dumb topic. you may as well ask if a world where humans are four legged is preferable, it would be just as easy to prove


Quarterfinal: Developing countries should not allow foreign entities (individuals or corporations) to own land within their territory.

bad topic. it's way more nuanced than that. GM bringing a factory into Mexico is a very good thing for Mexico. Rich foreigners buying up all oceanside real estate and pricing out the natives is not so good


Semifinal: Rehabilitation should be the only consideration in criminal sentencing.

Disagree, but it should probably be considered more than it is now


Final: The West should end all arms sales and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

Agree, that is an evil country


(The Pro team's plan in the final was that military cooperation would resume if Saudi Arabia (1) ended blockades and atrocities in Yemen and (2) ended state-sponsored terrorism, obviously more detailed than that, but those were the essential prongs to the plan.)

United States Universities Debating Championship

(1) The US should abolish congressional districts and instead implement statewide elections for congressional representatives.

I'm not even sure how this would work but I don't see the point. We already elect congressmen statewide, they're called senators. The House keeps it more local, which is important


(2) Governments should ban all technologies that make real-time police information about ongoing crimes available to the public.

Con.


(3) Governments should ban charities that seek out women and give them money in exchange for sterilization or taking long-term birth control.

Con.


(4) It would benefit the Cuban government to publicly criticize the legacy of Fidel Castro and end all public celebration of him (e.g. statues, national holidays, favorable school curricula, etc.).

Pro only because it would help normalize relations with the west


(5) A world without formalized art criticism (of visual art, literature, poetry, theater, film, etc.) would be preferable.

what does this even mean? it's not like the government appoints critics. some guy likes talking about movies, people like to read his opinion, so he gets a newspaper column to review movies. it would take a very heavy handed censorship regime to stamp that out and I dont see the point


(6) The US should regulate social media companies as utilities.

yea probably


(7) Countries should ban the purchase of property by foreign citizens in cities with rapidly rising housing prices in cases where the property is not the primary residence.

Absolutely yes. It's ridiculous, the middle class has been completely priced out in a lot of cities so that rich Chinese can own empty houses as investments. There is no conceivable benefit for the people


(8) The Democratic Party should push for increased globalization (e.g. free trade, open borders).

the topic is too specific but that's a great way for them to lose elections


(9) The International Monetary Fund should pay reparations to countries where IMF structural adjustment policies can be demonstrated to have done economic harm.

no idea


(10) Right to work laws in the United States are desirable.

no opinion


(11) The US should cede regional hegemony in East Asia to China.

No, screw China. If anyone other than the US should rule East Asia it should be Japan


(12) The LGBTQ+ movement should take no stance on whether being LGBTQ+ is a choice.

does it matter at this point?


(13) Society should regret the popularization of the idea that one's identity should determine the credibility of one's perspective on social justice issues.

yes, it should regret extreme leftist identity politics in general. Encouraging the collective supermajority in every western country to think of themselves as one big tribe (even though that concept is completely ridiculous for American whites) and then attacking them as members of that tribe is one of the dumbest ideas the left has had for a while
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 2:24:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2018 3:30:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
To quote version 1.0: "I'm curious to know whether people on DDO think these are balanced/fair/good resolutions for debate. So I'm not asking for your arguments or personal views on the issue, just whether you think these are good resolutions that are interesting/balanced."

World Schools Debating Championship

These were the resolutions at the World Schools Debating Championship this year, held last week at Zagreb, Croatia -- it's considered, typically, the most prestigious international HS-level debating tournament.

The style of topics is that it has weird starts like "this house would" (which means "[a particular actor, usually the government] should"), "this house believes that" (which really means nothing and could be deleted), "this house regrets [x]" (which means "[x] does/has done/did more harm than good"), "this house supports [y]" (which means either "[y] is desirable" or "[a certain policy should be implemented]"), and so on.

Round 1: This house would require professional sports teams to be owned by their local communities instead of individuals or corporations.

Fair topic. No balance considerations. Very boring though.

Round 2: This house opposes the development of lethal autonomous weapons.

This topic is ostensibly fair but the mechanics of how it would almost certainly have to be debated creates many issues. Does "development" imply that we're only talking about "lethal autonomous weapons" that do not exist now? Maybe. Maybe not. It turns out there are things that arguably fall into the category of lethal autonomous weapons, ranging from drones to ICBMs. On the other hand, maybe "lethal autonomous weapons" refers only to "giant death robots"?

It's not hard to see how different observations could take this debate in wildly different ways, any number of which would result in unfair burdens on one side and lacks of balance. If they want to talk about FUTURE means of killin' and dyin' that are automated, they should have just SAID SO. This is a terrible resolution.

Round 3: This house regrets the widespread belief that motherhood is a rewarding experience.

Whenever you see the word "regret" you should be skeptical. This is a terrible resolution. What does "regret" even mean? A general statement of disapproval? Sure. But, so what? Seems like if you're going to go PRO, you have to play games with the meaning of the word "regret" so as not to offend each and every mother out there. Terrible resolution. Likely to invoke judge prejudices. Very bad.

Round 4: This house believes that countries should allow non-citizen migrant workers to vote in local and national elections.

Fair resolution, evenly balanced, but very controversial.

Round 5: This house would implement a system of school vouchers.

Fair, balanced resolution. No issues.

Round 6: This house would not allow sellers and service providers to advertise their products beyond providing information and images that reveal technical product details.

Fair resolution. Would be interesting to see debated.

Round 7: This house regrets the Belt and Road Initiative.

I don't know what the belt and road initative is. But, see previous comments re the word "regret".

Round 8: This house regrets the rise of call-out culture.

See previous comments re the word "regret".

Octofinal: A world with no belief in the afterlife would be preferable.

This is a very bad resolution for reasons that should be patently obvious. Inherently biased.

Quarterfinal: Developing countries should not allow foreign entities (individuals or corporations) to own land within their territory.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

Semifinal: Rehabilitation should be the only consideration in criminal sentencing.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

Final: The West should end all arms sales and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(1) The US should abolish congressional districts and instead implement statewide elections for congressional representatives.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(2) Governments should ban all technologies that make real-time police information about ongoing crimes available to the public.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(3) Governments should ban charities that seek out women and give them money in exchange for sterilization or taking long-term birth control.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(4) It would benefit the Cuban government to publicly criticize the legacy of Fidel Castro and end all public celebration of him (e.g. statues, national holidays, favorable school curricula, etc.).

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(5) A world without formalized art criticism (of visual art, literature, poetry, theater, film, etc.) would be preferable.

Odd topic. Seems like it would bore judges and debaters alike.

(6) The US should regulate social media companies as utilities.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(7) Countries should ban the purchase of property by foreign citizens in cities with rapidly rising housing prices in cases where the property is not the primary residence.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(8) The Democratic Party should push for increased globalization (e.g. free trade, open borders).

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(9) The International Monetary Fund should pay reparations to countries where IMF structural adjustment policies can be demonstrated to have done economic harm.

Very bad topic. What constitutes a "demonstrated" harm, that is "economic" or otherwise"? Too much ambiguity, as would result in problems similar to those described above.

(10) Right to work laws in the United States are desirable.

Great topic. Balanced. No issues.

(11) The US should cede regional hegemony in East Asia to China.

Very biased topic that is likely to invoke prejudices of judges to debaters' disadvantage.

(12) The LGBTQ+ movement should take no stance on whether being LGBTQ+ is a choice.

Utterly stupid topic because of the moral implications of it.

(13) Society should regret the popularization of the idea that one's identity should determine the credibility of one's perspective on social justice issues.

See previous comment re the word "regret".
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 3:23:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
all good topics, except for 12 from the uni side imo. Clearly the protocols for creating debate topics are different in your country but we wouldn't be allowed to make kids debate a topic that strongly involves a personal identity considered a minority. I suppose it's fine for older people, but we probably wouldn't give that topic to a High school debate.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 7:57:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 3:23:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Clearly the protocols for creating debate topics are different in your country but we wouldn't be allowed to make kids debate a topic that strongly involves a personal identity considered a minority.

Not really "my country," this was set at a BP tournament in the US.

I suppose it's fine for older people, but we probably wouldn't give that topic to a High school debate.

I mean -- both sides would agree, in this debate, that helping LGBT people is a good thing and support equality and policies to fight LGBT discrimination; the debate is about which strategy the LGBT movement should employ to advance that goal. So I can't really see why anyone would make arguments that are against this specific minority, i.e., LGBT people.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 10:59:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 7:57:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2018 3:23:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Clearly the protocols for creating debate topics are different in your country but we wouldn't be allowed to make kids debate a topic that strongly involves a personal identity considered a minority.

Not really "my country," this was set at a BP tournament in the US.

I suppose it's fine for older people, but we probably wouldn't give that topic to a High school debate.

I mean -- both sides would agree, in this debate, that helping LGBT people is a good thing and support equality and policies to fight LGBT discrimination; the debate is about which strategy the LGBT movement should employ to advance that goal. So I can't really see why anyone would make arguments that are against this specific minority, i.e., LGBT people.

One argument which could be used in the debate follows:
> Presenting LGBT as a choice actively harms LGBT people
> LGBT movement should not present LGBT as merely a choice.
As with any argument, debaters are free to contest any premise in a syllogism in order to show why a conclusion is invalid. It would not be advised on technical grounds to contest that LGBT is indeed a choice, but if it would comprise a sufficient rebuttal then it is fair game. In such a situation an LGBT individual with prior bad experiences may feel personally attacked during the debate or get triggered.

My organisation runs HS debates in a state competition, and last year I watched a girl burst out of a debate crying after attempting to argue the necessity of animal sacrifices in the name of science. We reported it to the office and now we can't make that resolution again. We have responsibility here firstly because we mandate our resolutions (ie you can't choose to be affirmative or negative or what topic you get), so we have to be ethical about what we make people debate, and more importantly because we need it to be enjoyable to participants in order to maximise participation and thus make a profit. Whatever organisation is running this competition will happily forego particularly contentious topics if they think it'll turn away people from the competition or cause drama.

I fear that this is a similar "simmering pot" topic. On it's face, it's a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss, but people are complex animals and I see a real potential for harm in using it.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:02:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 10:59:42 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/1/2018 7:57:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2018 3:23:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Clearly the protocols for creating debate topics are different in your country but we wouldn't be allowed to make kids debate a topic that strongly involves a personal identity considered a minority.

Not really "my country," this was set at a BP tournament in the US.

I suppose it's fine for older people, but we probably wouldn't give that topic to a High school debate.

I mean -- both sides would agree, in this debate, that helping LGBT people is a good thing and support equality and policies to fight LGBT discrimination; the debate is about which strategy the LGBT movement should employ to advance that goal. So I can't really see why anyone would make arguments that are against this specific minority, i.e., LGBT people.

One argument which could be used in the debate follows:
> Presenting LGBT as a choice actively harms LGBT people
> LGBT movement should not present LGBT as merely a choice.
As with any argument, debaters are free to contest any premise in a syllogism in order to show why a conclusion is invalid. It would not be advised on technical grounds to contest that LGBT is indeed a choice, but if it would comprise a sufficient rebuttal then it is fair game. In such a situation an LGBT individual with prior bad experiences may feel personally attacked during the debate or get triggered.

My organisation runs HS debates in a state competition, and last year I watched a girl burst out of a debate crying after attempting to argue the necessity of animal sacrifices in the name of science. We reported it to the office and now we can't make that resolution again. We have responsibility here firstly because we mandate our resolutions (ie you can't choose to be affirmative or negative or what topic you get), so we have to be ethical about what we make people debate, and more importantly because we need it to be enjoyable to participants in order to maximise participation and thus make a profit. Whatever organisation is running this competition will happily forego particularly contentious topics if they think it'll turn away people from the competition or cause drama.

I fear that this is a similar "simmering pot" topic. On it's face, it's a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss, but people are complex animals and I see a real potential for harm in using it.

Name a topic about politics that isn't offensive to anyone. It's hard. Most political issues disproportionately affect minorities or hurt vulnerable people and could justify sadness.

I recognize issues related to equity (i.e., things like the potential for people to make arguments that are hateful to minorities), but beyond that, I don't think you should refrain from setting any controversial topics. Not setting anything remotely controversial defeats the point of debating -- or at least, one of the points of debating.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:09:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 10:59:42 AM, Smithereens wrote:
One argument which could be used in the debate follows:
> Presenting LGBT as a choice actively harms LGBT people
> LGBT movement should not present LGBT as merely a choice.
As with any argument, debaters are free to contest any premise in a syllogism in order to show why a conclusion is invalid. It would not be advised on technical grounds to contest that LGBT is indeed a choice, but if it would comprise a sufficient rebuttal then it is fair game. In such a situation an LGBT individual with prior bad experiences may feel personally attacked during the debate or get triggered.

But I've got two issues on this specifically, because I recognize that this is an issue relating to equity:

(1) I don't know of an LGBT person who's faced trauma due to their identity be triggered or face significant emotional harm at the idea that "being LGBT is a choice." I don't think that's a significant proportion of LGBT people, at least based on experience.

(2) I can't conceivably think of a debater in most parli debate circuits who would run that argument, even if it could conceivably be run.

In addition, this would disqualify a whole range of topics. Shengwu Li, formerly the world's best BP debater and an economist at Harvard, notes that the following topics would be disqualified if debating was a complete safe space:

(a) Abortion should be illegal at all stages of pregnancy.

(b) The international community should place sanctions on Israel unless it ends retaliatory strikes on the Gaza Strip. As the above debater points out, "There in fact exist Israeli ex-conscripts at international debate competitions, some of whom may have participated in IDF strikes, and some of whom may have PTSD. It's hardly far-fetched to suggest that the majority of debaters presented with that Gov [read: Pro] would feel that the easiest path to victory would be to analogize IDF strikes on Gaza to war crimes. For someone sitting in that room, having been a member of the IDF, the distinction between that argument and that accusation really isn't that large -- and worse if they're the one feeling like they have to make the argument."

(c) Assisted suicide should be legal for consenting adults.

(d) The consumption of all recreational drugs should be legal. "Debating competitions in fact involve persons who have problems with substance abuse, or are recovering substance abusers. Asking people to characterize, in detail, why people should be allowed to take hard drugs, or, in opp, the psychological and physical effects of hard drugs, could be traumatizing and even trigger relapses."

(e) Pornography should be illegal.

The list of such potential resolutions goes on.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 2:29:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 6:09:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2018 10:59:42 AM, Smithereens wrote:
One argument which could be used in the debate follows:
> Presenting LGBT as a choice actively harms LGBT people
> LGBT movement should not present LGBT as merely a choice.
As with any argument, debaters are free to contest any premise in a syllogism in order to show why a conclusion is invalid. It would not be advised on technical grounds to contest that LGBT is indeed a choice, but if it would comprise a sufficient rebuttal then it is fair game. In such a situation an LGBT individual with prior bad experiences may feel personally attacked during the debate or get triggered.

But I've got two issues on this specifically, because I recognize that this is an issue relating to equity:

(1) I don't know of an LGBT person who's faced trauma due to their identity be triggered or face significant emotional harm at the idea that "being LGBT is a choice." I don't think that's a significant proportion of LGBT people, at least based on experience.

I know a guy who was bullied for being gay. He had to wrestle with being told by christian parents that his lifestyle was an abomination he was inflicting upon himself and his personal conviction that he had no choice in the matter. While I don't think he'd get triggered by references to his childhood abuse, I can't extend that presumption to everyone. Making him argue that LGBT is or isn't a choice may almost perfectly replicate scenarios where they have had that discussion in the past under less desirable circumstances.

(2) I can't conceivably think of a debater in most parli debate circuits who would run that argument, even if it could conceivably be run.

To refute the notion that the LGBT movement should not take a stance on choice? One of the actual reasons why they do take a stance on it is because LGBT being a choice is demonstrably false and harmful as a narrative. It's been used to rationalise the abuse of LGBT individuals, contributing to their overwhelming propensity to commit suicide. I would expect this to come up in the debate in some form or another. The potential to trigger debaters via this topic is real.

In addition, this would disqualify a whole range of topics. Shengwu Li, formerly the world's best BP debater and an economist at Harvard, notes that the following topics would be disqualified if debating was a complete safe space:

There shouldn't be a blanket policy for 'safe space' in debates. Each debate topic is weighed on its merits and potential to cause a problem and used or rejected in a case-by-case basis. If any of the following examples you provide don't look like they are going to cause issues, there's no reason to reject them.


The list of such potential resolutions goes on.

I don't like this safe space culture that has developed in the US and hope it stays there. It appears to me that rejecting one topic has automatically validated the rejection of any topic that could be similar. This isn't how topics should be processed, and I hope this isn't the system that is actually in play. It's completely irrational to suggest that there's a one-size-fits-all rule that will tell us which topics are going to hurt the organisation and which aren't. You have to consider who the debaters are, who the audience is, what ages they are etc. That's why I wouldn't give an LGBT identity topic to an age range comprising the most vulnerable individuals, but as I said earlier, I would be fine to give it to Uni students.

The fact that this organisation did indeed give the topic to Uni students means I'm arguing a moot point here, as I believe they've acted justly. Keep that in mind.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 2:39:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 6:02:29 PM, tejretics wrote:
Name a topic about politics that isn't offensive to anyone. It's hard. Most political issues disproportionately affect minorities or hurt vulnerable people and could justify sadness.

I recognize issues related to equity (i.e., things like the potential for people to make arguments that are hateful to minorities), but beyond that, I don't think you should refrain from setting any controversial topics. Not setting anything remotely controversial defeats the point of debating -- or at least, one of the points of debating.

You're suggesting here you wouldn't draw a line if a prima-facie reading is anything to go by. Topics like "The holocaust never happened," "involuntary eugenics is a valid solution for overpopulation," are real debates that I would not like to see in a debate competition, and which are literally illegal in some countries.

So what topics are and aren't acceptable? As I've pointed out before, trust in the profit maximisation of the corporation sponsoring the debate. For them to increase their profits, they require greater participation. They will select topics that are controversial enough to get as many people interested as possible, but not so controversial that people get angry and antifa storms the debate hall shutting down the event.

If you plot controversy on an X axis and desirability on a Y-axis, you'll probably find that being more controversial is better to a point, and then it becomes less and less desirable. An inverse 'U' shape on a graph. You have to have controversial topics in order to have a debate, but you don't want them to be so controversial it interferes with the debate itself.

As I mentioned before in that incident last year when a girl left a debate in tears during her presentation, that entire debate had to be cancelled and that school likely pulled her from the competition, potentially removing one of their teams. Since our organisation charges per team, we lose money if this happens. Therefore, we won't give triggering topics.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 1:48:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 2:29:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
To refute the notion that the LGBT movement should not take a stance on choice? One of the actual reasons why they do take a stance on it is because LGBT being a choice is demonstrably false and harmful as a narrative. It's been used to rationalise the abuse of LGBT individuals, contributing to their overwhelming propensity to commit suicide. I would expect this to come up in the debate in some form or another. The potential to trigger debaters via this topic is real.

Would you set any topic on LGBT rights, then?
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 3:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 1:48:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/2/2018 2:29:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
To refute the notion that the LGBT movement should not take a stance on choice? One of the actual reasons why they do take a stance on it is because LGBT being a choice is demonstrably false and harmful as a narrative. It's been used to rationalise the abuse of LGBT individuals, contributing to their overwhelming propensity to commit suicide. I would expect this to come up in the debate in some form or another. The potential to trigger debaters via this topic is real.

Would you set any topic on LGBT rights, then?

I'd happily give the topic as is to the target you mentioned it was being given to. I likely wouldn't give it to high schoolers. Being flexible with older debaters is a lot easier as it's expected that they are able to tackle most topics in a mature fashion. The younger the debaters are, the more precautions I would take, and consequently the smaller the range of topics I would give them.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 6:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:30:59 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/2/2018 1:48:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/2/2018 2:29:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
To refute the notion that the LGBT movement should not take a stance on choice? One of the actual reasons why they do take a stance on it is because LGBT being a choice is demonstrably false and harmful as a narrative. It's been used to rationalise the abuse of LGBT individuals, contributing to their overwhelming propensity to commit suicide. I would expect this to come up in the debate in some form or another. The potential to trigger debaters via this topic is real.

Would you set any topic on LGBT rights, then?

I'd happily give the topic as is to the target you mentioned it was being given to. I likely wouldn't give it to high schoolers. Being flexible with older debaters is a lot easier as it's expected that they are able to tackle most topics in a mature fashion. The younger the debaters are, the more precautions I would take, and consequently the smaller the range of topics I would give them.

I think not discussing issues relating to minority rights is more harmful than discussing them, particularly for school students.

Particularly when the good cases on both sides of the topic are pro-minority and non-racist/sexist/homophobic.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 1:09:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2018 6:07:05 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:30:59 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/2/2018 1:48:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/2/2018 2:29:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
To refute the notion that the LGBT movement should not take a stance on choice? One of the actual reasons why they do take a stance on it is because LGBT being a choice is demonstrably false and harmful as a narrative. It's been used to rationalise the abuse of LGBT individuals, contributing to their overwhelming propensity to commit suicide. I would expect this to come up in the debate in some form or another. The potential to trigger debaters via this topic is real.

Would you set any topic on LGBT rights, then?

I'd happily give the topic as is to the target you mentioned it was being given to. I likely wouldn't give it to high schoolers. Being flexible with older debaters is a lot easier as it's expected that they are able to tackle most topics in a mature fashion. The younger the debaters are, the more precautions I would take, and consequently the smaller the range of topics I would give them.

I think not discussing issues relating to minority rights is more harmful than discussing them, particularly for school students.

Particularly when the good cases on both sides of the topic are pro-minority and non-racist/sexist/homophobic.

Perhaps, and if you have a topic that was pro-minority on both sides then sure. The topic in questions isn't pro-LGBT for the negative side, as a pro-LGBT stance would never advocate sexuality as a choice.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.