Grand Ledge Update
The opening session of the Western Michigan Legislative Debate League is going to be one of our largest ever. At this count, there are 37 students planning to attend -- that means two chambers.
With two chambers we will split City students:
Chamber 1
Emily Riippa
Riet Groenleer,
Yefei Jin
Catherine Khuu
Chamber 2
Christina LeAnd now, what about those bills?
Abe Rinck
Oana Damacus
Nathan Ritsema
We have five bills to consider, three by Simon Boehme from Kalamazoo Central, two from City (hint hint -- we will need more bill writers). The bills offer a good sampling of controversy for you to sink your teeth into. Let's examine them.
A Bill for the removal of the Electoral College
- Overview: Simon wants to abolish the Electoral College, and in its place use a preference ranking system. Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it?
- Aff: The Electoral College is rather clumsy and can lead to electing a person who actually receives fewer votes (look up what happened in 2000 with Bush/Gore). On the positive side, the plan would make the vote more responsive to the majority wishes.
- Neg: Look for the unseend disadvantages. In Constitutional theory, the Electoral College was used to guarantee small states at least some say in the election -- would this happen under the proposed set-up?
- Research: You ought to be able to find all you need by searching for "Electoral College" and "Ban Electoral College."
A Bill to repeal Affirmative Action (Executive Order 11246)
- Overview: Article I gives the intent rather clearly. This debate could degenerate into a food fight on race, or you could consider exploring just what the Federal Government is doing. There is a lot of vagueness here, not least, how does one define Affirmative Action. Do we mean only the explicit quota systems? Or something more general, where disadvantaged groups are given help (think of math/science camps for girls)? The danger in the bill is that there is a broader intent than what the specific Executive Order details. The bill's author goes after the bill with a broad brush -- you've been warned!
- Aff: Go with the moral reasoning, the intent of the bill. One can plausibly point out that we already ban racial discrimination and that should be enough. Create arguments for racial equality as the better way of upholding American values.
- Neg: Two big troubles invite a response. First, this is very broad, so lots and lots of holes. Note he doesn't define affirmative action. Second, lookup the Executive Order. It's a far more narrow piece of legislation (and only applies for contractors with a contract worth more than $10k). Lot's of good stuff.
- Research: Start with looking up the original Executive Order. Wikipedia has a decent overview. Expand your search to news on Affirmative Action.
A Resolution to Support the Afrian Union (AU)
- Overview: Pretty bland. There may be a little too much reliance on the African Union. The real question would be whether this organization is as effective as the Resolution suggests.
- Aff. Focus on the good that is being done by the AU. This is a new step for the African countries, designed to work together (and not just be a club for dictators_.
- Neg. Focus on the size of the problem, and the small resources of the AU. Good intentions, but really, what can you expect with their budget. Lastly, note that they are a creature of Libya leader Qaddafi.
- Research. Look up secondary sources, like the BBC. There's more out there.
- Overview. After Katrina, it became clear that FEMA had lost its aura of competence that it once had under the Clinton administration. Many blame this on how the agency is hid within the Department of Homeland Security. This bill would restore an independent existence to FEMA.
- Aff. Emphasize the problems that gave rise to this issue (Katrina, etc.). You may also want to pick up on the need for professionalism. You may also want to pick up on the issue of professional management, and why that is a good thing given the type of work FEMA is engaged in.
- Neg. An independent agency may not have the resources to really coordinate relief. You can also point out how the budget numbers are a little unclear.
- Research. The idea of making FEMA independent has been kicking around. Start your search with "FEMA Independence -Missouri" (you don't want articles about "Independence, Missouri)
- Overview. Abe sticks his foot in. This will be controversial. The heart of the bill lies in the good ennummerated in Section 2. Opponents will see this as advancing a social agenda, defenders will point to the obvious benefits.
- Aff. As above, focus on the contractual benefits, the ones that make the home better. These moves would save money for the government (at least that would be your argument).
- Neg. Should Congress really be in the business of overturning a thousand years of experience? You will want to be careful not to sound too harsh about some of the benefits.
- Research. There are lots of arguments out there. Find an argument that matches your own sensibility.
Labels: Legislative Debate, Tournament, Update
posted by wmrharris @ 3:36 PM
