14 Bills at Ionia, pt. 1

With three sessions in front of us, be prepared on most of these. It will be very easy to be negative on any and all of these. Honestly, each bill has its holes. So when the bill in question goes off the track, it is more useful and ultimately more productive to consider the spirit or idea behind the legislation.

Now for the bills (we'll look at them in terms of Need, Instrumentality -- how they might actually be enacted, then suggestions for Aff and Neg)

Bill No. 1: Act to Improve Public Education

• Need. This bill arises from a flaw in No Child Left Behind: each state gets to define what success is, so naturally states want to set standards that put them in a good light. Fifty different standards for excellence would seem to be odd.
• Instrumentality. The bill leaves the funding for the test in the dark. You will be tempted to whack at this, but remember, this new test replaces others that states are using. The net cost is likely to be zero, or even less.
• Aff. Argue for the necessity for standards. This can be done with appeals to either commerce (business needs people who are skilled, a common test provides a common base), or it can be done as a matter of social justice: we do no favor to the poor or minority by pretending that there really is not a standard.
• Neg. Argue state's rights. Who knows the student better? Second, a test always implies a curriculum. Do we really want one curriculum for the whole country? There are lots of places here to mix it up.

Bill No. 2: Ban Animal Experimentation

• Need. Underlying this bill are two ideas: Animal rights, that is, we prove our humanity in how we treat those creatures who in some sense depend on us. Second, there is the idea of "shock the conscience" -- some experiments are truly horrific. This reliance on philosophy and aesthetics is a weakness in the bill.
• Instrumentality. There are some good points here, especially in the development of a new inspection service. However, the definition of experimentation is left under-developed. Does this include veterinary science? What is the meaning of "scientific" here? As a practical measure, the author has yet to understand how the use of grants can limit or focus research.
• Aff. Keep the focus on medicinal purposes. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that we do not need to use animals in the way we have. There are alternatives.
• Neg. A focus on the outlier cases may be the most useful. The bill takes a categorical approach so focus on the exceptions. There are some circumstances where animal experimentation has helped. Be ready to bring up "touching stories".