Christian High on Saturday

Saturday will be the first major tournament on the west side of the state: the Eagle Invitational at Grand Rapids Christian High School.

If you're going, you will need to be there by 8 a.m. For those who are not familiar with the location, Grand Rapids Christian is located on the SE side of the city, on Plymouth. Here's the map:

So far, here is who we have signed up:

Extemp -- Catherine Khuu
Informative -- Riet Groenleer
Impromptu -- Christina Le, Manuel Garcia
Broadcasting -- Nathan Ritsema
Poetry -- Sharon Hay

We'll update as we more sign up. If you would like to compete let Ms P and Mr H know as soon as possible. The deadline is Wednesday, noon. So Tuesday pm at the latest.

The Century Club is Now Open

Frankenmuth saw our first 1/100 of the season: Christina Le, Impromptu. She's the first, but there's more to come.

Back from Frankenmuth

Saturday was our first Forensics tournament of the 2008 campaign. We had six students take their pieces "out of the box:"

• Christina Le -- Impromptu 9/10
• Catherine Khuu -- Extemp (her first in this piece!)
• Riet Groenleer -- Informative
• Nathan Ritsema -- Broadcasting
• Sharon Hay -- Poetry (her first IE piece!)
• Brandy Andresen -- Prose

Experience paid off with several students taking seconds in their rounds, and with Christina moving into the semi-finals. Congratulations.

Next up: Christian.

Otsego Bill Analysis

On Wednesday February 20, the WMLDL will meet at Otsego High School. The bills under consideration are mostly bills from previous meets. So if they sound familiar, they should.

Resolution 1 -- Support Student Maternal Leave (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. This was first put forward at State. As a Resolution, the measure can pick up what might first seem like a state issue. A Resolution involves no money and so has no real implementing power. As to the measure itself, the bill addresses the social status of teen-age, unwed mothers. By creating the option of maternal leave, the idea will be to help the woman continue in her education while also keeping the baby (and not aborting it). As a measure to address the abortion question, this is an especially nice back door approach.
  
  
• Instrumentality. See above, this is a Resolution, so normal issues aren't really germane. One might raise up the questions of whether or not there is an epidemic (ln 4), or whether current schools in fact are so uncaring. One question to explore will be the degree of healthcare that will be made available to the young mother -- if any. A good starting point for this discussion would be exploring the issue of unwanted pregnancy (see Guttmacher Institute).
  
  
• Clash. Remarkably, this bill can be attacked from the Right. Clash One: Are schools really the place for this kind of care? How accommodating should schools be to such conditions? Doesn't this make the school a kind of social work agency? Is that it's real purpose. So its Social Work v. Education grudge match. Clash Two: What message does this send? Doesn't this measure end up with the schools sanctioning immorality? How do we respect the choices students make? Shouldn't there be a penalty for a bad decision? See, there are all sorts of interesting issues on the Right just waiting to be explored. For those on the Left, Instrumentality will be your best bet.

Bill 1 -- Global Roaming (Senator Le, Grand Rapids City)

• Overview. The United States lets the individual cell phone providers use different spectrums and so different standards. Lack of standardization imposes a variety of economic costs on the United States economy, particularly compared to countries in Europe and Asia. This measure would produce a gradual roll out of the program. This gradual roll out does impose costs on smaller companies if they have to maintain two systems.
  
  
• Instrumentality. As noted, costs are the hidden problem here. Who picks up the extra service charge here for the two systems? A possible amendment will be to create a mandatory phase out date after passage, say 5 years from passage. This limits costs to the company
  
  
• Clash. Should the government really determine what system is best? Doesn't this sound like the government picking (economic) winners? Against this, there is a clear precedent for the federal government to promote commerce. A second issue is the status of the poor. Are they at risk with this kind of change? Could a sudden change end up with less cell-phone coverage? Is it just to require the poor to invest just to stay in touch? Or do we count on the telephone companies to extend options to them (you think?).

Bill NO. 2 -- Reduce the Age of Alcohol Consumption in Michigan (Senator Huang, Otsego)

• Overview. Section II says it all: old enough to join the Army, old enough to drink. Although this is considered as a state level bill, a national perspective will focus on a common standard for all states. At its heart, the bill is about one legal standard for adulthood. When are you an adult? Why should it be considered as a rolling event? Why not have a date fixed, and call it good?
  
  
• Instrumentality. Lowering the drinking age raises some interesting problems regarding abuse. The dangers of abuse are obvious one of the key issues. The extension of drinking to younger ages may also be another area to explore. As noted, this is framed as a Michigan-specific measure. This is an easy point of attack. Noting that, suggest that the bill really be understood as an establishment of a common age of majority for youth in the nation. You may want to pay attention to the final Section. Does this mean that 18-year olds can bring beer with them in their lunch to school? Clearly you don't want to be wiping out useful laws.
  
  
• Clash. The principal clash is that of who determines when adulthood is legally recognized. Isn't that really the property of the State? One area for consideration is that of who pays. While no direct funding is required, could there be indirect expenses? For instance, does such a measure increase insurance premiums for families with 17 and 18 year olds? There may be many other examples of hidden costs. Bring them up. Look again at Section V. What about schools? When do we say that youth are fully adults? Is it just an age function? When are you ready to be a citizen? is 18 right? or 21? Some interesting areas to think about.

Bill No. 3 -- Provide Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research (Senator Cramer, Otsego)

• Overview. Bill is seeking to expand funding for and access to stem cell research. This double focus, keeps the issue centered on that of stem cells generally. Again, we're in the area of what are termed pluripotent cells, i.e. those stem cells from which a variety of cells can be developed -- at least hypothetically. The problem in all stem cell research is the source of the cells. Where the embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos they can be seen as debasing or otherwise destroying a potential life. This is the source of most controversy regarding stem cells.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The weakness in the bill will be the lack of definition. E.g. $40 million, but for what year? That is presumably an increase. Likewise, there is a loose definition of "stem cells" when what is meant are "embryonic stem cells" or even "pluripotent stem cells". A second issue worthy of discussion is whether the bill is too broad: it has a budget function, then includes donation of umbilical cords, as well as excess embryos from fertility clinics. This last is the problem child. It may make it more palatable to delete ln 5 "and excess fertility clinic embryos."
  
  
• Clash. The moral question will occupy many. The principal clash will be that of pragmatism -- we do what works -- and that of ethical policy -- we do what's right (even if it seems to limit oru options0. So where do you fall on this? What works? What's right? Can there be a greater good which you could pursue? What kinds of decision making would you use? This is a philosophical approach. Remember that no matter what side you choose, you will still need to back up your point with some kind of reference.

Bill No. 4 -- Firearm Permits for Qualified Classroom Teachers (Sen Milliman, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Is there a place for guns on campus? Perhaps after the shooting at Northern Illinois, there might be a place. This is a return of an earlier bill. Generally, states have determined that the classroom is among those places where firearms are not permitted. This bill would change that, and so allow your favorite teacher to also pack some heat.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The key clause in the bill is definition of "districts deemed at high risk of gun violence" --- no standards are specified. In the course of debate, this would be a good place to clarify. How do you know what districts this applies to? Likewise, you will want to raise the question of jurisdiction -- is this really a federal issue? On what basis? An interesting aspect is the number of barriers presented to the teacher: it's all at her expense, which presumably will decrease the applications for such a permit.
  
  
• Clash. At first blush this looks like a purely state issue. There is however a Second Amendment aspect: can the state restrict where guns are allowed anywhere? Another clash can take place on the role of education itself: What makes a safe school? Do we think of schools as a community? Or as a place of confrontation? Guns in the classroom suggests that the teacher does not trust the students in the desks. Is that the case?

Bill No. 5 -- Legalize the Sale and Purchase of Human Organs (Sen. Walley, Otsego)

• Overview. The bill sets up a government market for the sale of human organs for transplant purposes. At present organs are donated; the notion introduces a market mindset. One might get more organs if a price were paid. Essentially this incentives the donation of your own organs (or presumably granny's if you have power of attorney). Organ trafficking is found elsewhere in the world, chiefly in Eastern Europe (illegally) and in India (of dubious legality).
  
  
• Instrumentality. The bill covers most of the obvious bases fairly well. Two questions merit more exploration. First, what about power of attorney? Can a third party enter into a contract, provided they have legal rights (e.g. you have power of attorney over your great aunt Sue, can you therefore auction off her kidney?). Second, the bill is unclear about who purchases? The managed fee structure is not spelled out. Does the bill also allow for third party or middleman contracts? This latter has been the bane of India.
  
  
• Clash. The heart of the real debate will be about the nature of donation v. sale, paid or non-paid? While incentives do provide for more organs, it can also raise the question of self-interest. Money does strange things (think of reality TV), how do we keep self-interest properly focused? Second, since we are talking about money, does this measure place the poor at greater risk? A useful analog to research would be problems with blood donors.
  

Bill No. 6 -- Required Food Labeling (Sen. Smith, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Bill focuses on labeling requirements for foods. There are three aspects: country of origin, status as an organic product, elimination of the word "natural" on food labels. The bill focuses on Title 21, the section of the US Code governing labeling.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Article II is already in Title 21, so it can be deleted -- certainly do not debate this one. Optional organic labeling is already provided by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). There already exist extensive labeling requirements, found in US Title 7. What is missing in the bill, are the various levels of organic labeling. The code is actually quite supple, here. The ban on "natural" is perhaps most controversial with respect to the labeling of meat. As with many bills, the penalty phase is too extreme. (e.g. Who exactly goes to jail?).
  
  
• Clash. This bill turns about how you understand its purpose. Is this for the consumer? If so, then how much is enough information? Does the required Organic tell the buyer anything? Here the clash is that between Market and Regulation. Is virtue (Organic = good) something best protected by the Organic industry? Or should these be a part of the required labels? There is no automatic position here -- sometimes the Market is best, sometimes Government (especially when companies are prone to cut corners.) A second possible clash arises if you think this is really an organic farm bill -- does it require non-organic products to label themselves as "non-organic"? If so, then we have a bill that actually markets a product, disguised as a regulation. So the clash: how do we make sure that we have needed regulation, and not simply rules that help this or that special interest? What makes a good regulation?

Results from State

Last weekend was a big one for the Congressional Debate Community. More than 90 students from 15 different high schools got together at the downtown campus of GVSU. By the time we got to the Super Session (finals) we had some of the top speakers in the State. As you can expect, the chamber explored the bills in depth. In fact, only two were debated: The Habeas Corpus Act of 2008 which owould extend habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo, and a Bill to Encourage the Use of BioFuels -- principally a subsidy measure for ethanol.

City was able to have four students in the final chamber of 24: Christina Le, Catherine Khuu, Nathan Ritsema, and Riet Groenleer.

Nathan Ritsema was PO for the first half of the session when the session debated Habeas...

When it came time for awards, three of the top ten were from City:

• Christina Le -- 4th
• Nathan Ritsema -- 5th
• Riet Groenleer -- 10th

Congratulations! In a tournament that had more than doubled, City more than held its own.

State -- Super Session Analysis

A few words up front:

Be aware that Super Sessions will generally cover two or three bills. While you can guess which three will be picked up, you will be well advised to cover at least 4 of the 6 bills; being ready to speak on five or all six is recommended.

Again, remember the rule of Cross-ex: it's always better if they ask you. If you speak, be sure to answer in complete sentences. The longer you talk the less time there is for any one else. If you are the one questioning, try framing your answer as a straight "yes or no" question; and state it explicitly. "Yes or no, do you think...."

Resolution -- Recognize Taiwan (Sen. Gomes Novi)

• Overview. At the close of the civil war in China in 1949, the Nationalist government fled to the island of Taiwan. The Communists, having taken over the capital and mainland China considered Taiwan as also part of their territory. The Nationalists, not surprising, also thought of the Communists in Beijing as rebels. With the rise of China's economic and military power, this two-China situation was more or less resolved into recognition of China, and with Taiwan in an international no-man's line. However, mainland China continues to see the island as rightfully part of the nation, and so any move to recognize the legitimacy of Taiwan is seen as an afront to national dignity. The size and scale of the Chinese economy only adds to the difficulties. This resolution seeks to carve out a separate identity for Taiwan.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Wisely, this is in form of a resolution. Treaty making is a function of the Executive, and the Senate can only ratify. It may be objected that explanatory clauses of the Therefore do not follow from the earlier justifications -- weapon sales seem out of place, a derivative of recognition rather than a core element. One may eliminate the clause "continue sales..." with little effect to the whole.
  
  
• Clash. The big issue is not that of weapon sales, but of the relations with China. Clash One would concern the role of US PRC relationship. Should it be hostile? what are the consequences of hostility? Clash Two, what about morality? Can we do something because it is right? or do the forces of commerce oblige us to act in certain ways (against ROC)? Clash Three, to what extent has our economic shortfalls limited our foreign policy options. The problem with Taiwan is only a symptom of something much deeper and more troubling in US policy. (Here is a great place to bring in all sorts of economic arguments).

Resolution -- Support Student Maternal Leave (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. According to the Guttmacher Institute, social stress on pregnant women is a leading driver for abortions. This would be especially true for young, high school-aged women. The Resolution attacks the question of these unplanned pregnancies by asking schools to make it possible for young women to be excused for maternity leave. The presumed benefit is twofold: fewer abortions, and fewer women dropping out; or to look at it another way: more live births into stabler, better-prepared homes.
  
  
• Instrumental. One can push on this several ways. First there will be a challenge as to whether such a nation-wide epidemic exists. This will be your read on the data -- does it suggest a growing problem or not? (If the problem does not seem to be large enough, then the the Resolution loses its urgency.) A second area to ponder is the question of time -- how much time is being considered? Does it mean time away from school (in which case, the young mother falls behind her peers)? Does it mean, she brings the child to school -- so day care at the school? These sort of implementing ideas are well worth exploring. If you like the bill, at least suggest how it could be made more specific by amendment or in translation into actual policy.
  
  
• Clash. Behind the Resolution lies a notion of the school as a provider of social services. Is that its role? Or is it the responsibility of other agencies in the community? Do we put too much emphasis on our schools to solve society's problems? Related to this is speaking about the nature of the school as an academic institution -- can it be indifferent to the parenting (and sexual) choice of its students? Last, another clash can be engaged on the role of individual responsibility: how do we take charge of our lives? What is the role of the individual? What happens when we make mistakes? At its largest, there is the question of second (and third) chance. This is not a societal issue per se, but it is one of moral life. What are the right ways to give a hand up (and not a hand out)?

Bill -- Banning School Use of Internet Profiles (Sen. McGinnis, South Lyon)

• Overview. In the information-sharing rich world of Web 2.0 (Facebook, FlickR, etc.), what is the relationship of material posted on the web for sharing, and the school? Can a school bar a student because of something she or he has posted? The Bill would prohibit school action, deferring any action to those of other parties, with first priority being given to the parents. The bill clearly wants to give guidance to schools about how to handle today's info-rich web, as well as empower parents to be the primary gatekeepers for online behavior. Of course, this sets up one of the perennial confrontations between technology and family (and school).
  
  
• Instrumental. If the issue has multiple interesting aspects, the bill itself is more problematic. Left unspecified is how the US Government enters into what is essentially local decision making. This is more a sign of a young or relatively inexperienced bill writer: too much emphasis on process or punishment. Second area: what is being funded? Money is being raised (Sec. 3) but to what end? The actual program aspects are not specified. Third, one may want to discuss the actual content of the web sites -- must all content be sent first to the parents and law enforcement? What might be consequences of such actions? Is this a well thought-out procedure? Consider an amendment that schools preserve the right to intervene and discipline should they determine that the safety of the schools, the students and/or personnel is at risk.
  
  
• Clash. The first major issue is that of responsibility, hinted at in Section 2.E. -- students need to be educated to handle these new tools responsibly. This bill can be considered either as an invitation to more nanny government (through education), or an abandonment of educational duty (the equivalent, say, of letting the kids have a party at the house, while keeping the liquor cabinet unlocked). A second clash, is that of the nature of digital information. Do the same rules apply here, as in public? (Defamation, etc) What kinds of social controls (if any) are appropriate. I suspect that in many ways, this bill (if debated) will be seen as a battle over the nature of information -- can the adults control it? should they?

Bill -- Encourage Bio-Fuels (Sen. Lindsay, Rochester Adams)

• Overview. An old favorite shows up. The measure uses tax policy to promote fuels. It raises taxes on pure gasoline products while offering increased tax incentives to farmers. The use of tax policy is a nice touch, however one may wish to question if the problem really is with the farmer side, or is it with the refinery? This would certainly be an item to clarify.
  
  
• Instrumental. Generally, fairly sharp. Questions may be raised regarding the "50% tax": fifty percent of what? Or is it meant 50 cents (a fixed amount). Percentages raise a number of problems, depending on what the underlying cost basis is. Likewise the tax deduction could use more definition. What are the exact taxes being reduced? Clarify this in cross-ex. The missing refineries are probably the biggest omission.
  
  
• Clash. The Bio-Fuel issue has a number of now well-understood clash points. First, Bio-Fuels are not necessarily net (or poor net) energy efficient, that is it may actually take more fuel to produce than energy we receive. Go figure. Over against that are the mechanisms of reducing US reliance on overseas energy sources. Second, the use of crops, means that these same crops cannot be used for food production. This may be good for farmers, but it does function as an upward pressure on food prices generally. So the clash is a more stable agriculture sector v. increased prices for food. The larger issues remain, how do we manage our fossil fuel consumption? Do we continue the current way, with better technology (so bio-fuels), or do we look to restructure? How do we make the decisions? The Bio-Fuels can be seen as a first step to environmental awareness, or as a roadblock to the real steps that need to be taken. Which way is it? The choice is yours.

Bill -- Global Roaming (Sen. Le, Grand Rapids City)

• Overview. The bill seeks to bring cellular phones in the US up to international standards. At present, different cellular companies employ different standards. While the different standards preserve company profits, they also inhibit technical development. A common standard my have the impact of rendering a number of phones obsolete, thereby impacting especially the poor. Further the enforced obsolescence of the present phones could meet a fair amount of consumer headwind, and potentially impact present cellular contracts. It will take some thinking to determine who benefits the most, the smaller phone companies, or the giants (AT&T, Verizon).
  
  
• Instrumental. Costs of the shift are not provided -- particularly those associated with the change from systems. The difficulty will be managing the "grandfathered" phones -- how long do these remain in service? One amendment to consider would be to end all non-compliant contracts after some date (january 1 2011, say). This would provide time for a transition.
  
  
• Clash. A key clash will turn on the involvement of government in specifying standards: to what extent does this represent a picking of favorites or of winners? One of the consequences of the bill will be that some telephone companies will be at a disadvantage, since they will not have sufficient spectrum available to support the new standards. Second will be the issue of costs: the more expensive phones will impact consumers, and penalize those who use the phones the least -- who should regulation favor? The mass market (and relatively down-scale) consumer, or the techno-savvy? And this brings the last area: who is better at determining standards? Is it really the government? Or can the companies and the market take care of it? What is the nature of the partnership between technology companies and government? As I note, this is a fairly technical sort of bill, so I would expect it to be one of the last bills to be opened (if at all).
  

State Tournament -- Session I

Overview

There will be seven bills in the first two sessions and six in the Super Session. As you prepare be sure to prepare speeches for at least four in each session. The bills are not numbered, but merely collected into a docket for consideration. You will be able to debate them in any order your chamber wishes.

As you do, also remember that the more you can bring to the bill, the better your remarks will be received. On some of these bills you will be tempted to simply attack the weaknesses -- it is far better to launch a critique that makes the chamber seem smarter at the end. Educate them. Illumine them. And of course disagree (or back them up) as you need to.

Be bold and be prepared to speak.

Bill: Amend the Patriot Act (Sen. Kehoe, South Lyon)

• Overview. Formally known as Bill to Prevent Abuse of Power in Investigations Using the USA Patriot Act, this bill addresses two of the more notorious sections of the Patriot Act -- this wide focus makes this bill especially challenging to debate. Broadly the issues turn about the scope we should grant the federal government in its pursuit of potential terrorist threats. Section 215 was criticized vehemently in the original Patriot Act, but in the 2006 renewal, some of those criticisms have been addressed. The Constitutional and legal issues are rife; complicating the measure is that some measures are themselves deemed "secret" -- FISA courts govern Sec 206 and operate outside of the usual public channels. To understand issues, you may want to read this post by Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown. The complexity of the law under consideration reduces this bill to its more political aspects (are you for Bush or against him). Along with the subjects, you may want to look up something on the FISA courts, but this is a very complicated and not altogether clear area of government. Complexity means that Chambers will resist consideration.
  
  
• Instrumental. As noted, what exactly is under consideration? The bill wants to amend the Patriot Act but does not specifiy how or where. The battle will turn on what are the appropriate avenues for pursuing would-be terrorists in a digital era. Focus One: what does the author mean about "individual specification? " -- the exact cell phones? The exact accounts? (Note on bill writing: this is the sort of confusion that arises when a bill is written too loosely). Focus Two: who certifies? Again the bill wants a vague court -- but should terrorism be pursued in this manner? But a special court like the FISA, and how do you control? You can see the issue taking shape, can't you? Besides, an opponent of this Bill may reasonably ask whether the FISA courts already cover this. What's different? Focus Three: what other bills are being rendered void (Section IV). This needs real clarification. It is helpful to keep in mind that the Patriot Act is actually amending a number of existing laws, so how this change affects others will be unclear.
  
  
• Clash. So how do you debate a hopelessly complex bill? The pro-side will use some of the more notorious horror stories regarding the Patriot Act. They are out there. Three issues however deserve better consideration.
  First: Terrorism. how does one fight terrorism? What are the right tools? Who should delegate this battle -- that is, can we trust our government to protect
  Second: Freedom v. Risk. There is the tension between security and the freedom of citizens. Americans have often prized freedom, even if it has meant assuming more risk. Here, you may want to bring in considerations of the Fourth Amendment and the broad expectations of privacy.
  Third: Technology. How do we keep ourselves safe in a world information moves increasingly across mobile devices? What is the nature of modern information technology? Perhaps the Patriot Act is a symptom of a larger issue. Again, a good speeches are available on both sides.

Bill: Ban Political Advertisements (Sen. Macy, Novi)

• Overview. In a political year like ours, who doesn't finally want to turn off the political ads on television? The Bill provides a categorical ban on political ads in support of a candidate as well as prohibit attack ads. The focus on television alone will give rise to the legitimate questions about other modes of advertising (bill boards, mail, internet, etc.). This looks as if it is doing a lot, but perhaps it is doing too little. As with broadly written bills, there are some weaknesses that will need clarification. Other nations have very restrictive rules governing political advertising, these are worth looking into, as are various proposals on campaign finance reform.
  
  
• Instrumental. As written, the bill is ambiguous about how broadly it should be taken. First, what is meant by "television?" Should that include private broadcasts (cable, satellite)? Second, consider the significance of the word "for" in Line 1. The word would seem to cover ads by a third party on behalf of the candidate. Third, Article Two leaves unspecified who these candidates are: the same as in Line 2? Or should you consider this a banning on all attack ads? (And again, what constitutes an attack ad)? Use the cross-ex to clarify these issues. For those in favor the narrower the bill is construed the better chance it has for real debate.
  
  
• Clash. The obvious issue is that of the First Amendment. Who determines who speaks or who does not? Banning types of advertising is safer than the banning of a message (Article Two). You may also want to consider the nature of television. Is it intrinsically manipulative? Does it present a false image, or does it reveal character? (Is that Huckabee on the screen or who we are supposed to think Huckabee is?) Here, there is another interesting essay at Balkinization. Finally, you may want to pick up on the issue of wealth. To what extent should elections belong to the largest pocketbook? Does great wealth distort the choices the nation must make? If so, how can we isolate elections from this impact?
  

Bill: Last Chance Medical Experimentation (Sen. Wymer, Ionia)

• Overview. A somewhat ghoulish title, but the overall bill is fairly well focused. The bill would permit experimental treatment and surgeries on patients identified as living in "last chance situations." As a matter of form there is a confusion between permitting and legalizing. The bill allows for appropriate authorization by patient or a patient's representative. There is one element of conceptual confusion as to who would pay for such procedures: the bill's concern for insurance companies (sec 2d, 2e) suggest that the author envisions patients' paying for the procedures done to their body. Given the topic, this could spark a very interesting debate.
  
  
• Instrumental. Two issues should both be cleared up early on in the debate. First What is missing is any limiting on the power of these so-called experimental procedures. Must they be specific to the condition at hand? Or does the fact that you have fallen into a coma, mean that the doctor or research can experiment on any part of your body? Potentially, this could get pretty ghoulish. You go in for incurable liver cancer, and the next thing they're experimenting on your knee, etc. Second, there is the question of who pays (and who benefits). While it seems that the author is thinking patients pay, the real beneficiaries of this would be doctors and researchers -- so shouldn't they pay? And if they pay, how much more? This may be worth an amendment.
  
  
• Clash. The most obvious clash will come in the territory of experimental medicine. Do we approve this because it is presumed to work? Doesn't that push us into an idea of ends justify the means? Here, the bill looks remarkably like the same conflicts that center on stem cells. For those with strong sense of right to life and the integrity of the human body, they will want to protest this bill as a violation of the person, while those in support will emphasize the benefits. Another issue to consider is the role of money. When you pay, do you get better subjects? Does money distort research? Yet perhaps the most important issue to raise is that of free consent. What does it mean to give consent to radical procedures? When one is dying and dependent on the hospital, how much freedom does one have? What are the conditions for free consent? You may want to look up protocols for medical research.
  

Bill: DPRK Normalization (Sen. Gallicki, Dearborn)

• Overview. The bill instructs the State Department to take two qualified steps to address the isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, otherwise known as North Korea). The two steps are pre-emptive steps in the US-DRPK negotiations over nuclear weapons. It should also be noted that Article 2 represents a doubling of historic US positions. The US State Department position on N Korea is here. This is likely to face overwhelmingly negative response -- so extra work on a possible affirmative case may be an occasion to gain credibility. You will certainly get the chance to get heard.
  
  
• Instrumental. The key issue is the freedom the Senate/Congress has with respect to bi-lateral negotiations. It may be properly objected that the bill hand-cuffs the freedom of the State Department and the President to negotiate treaties and their conditions.
  
  
• Clash. The big clash is constitutional (President v. Senate). A second clash to work on is the role of how to bring in rogue nations. Finally, you may also want to consider the specifics of the US history with N Korea. What are the expected results of these efforts? Will it change the DRPK behavior? Read up on the history of their negotiating style (see Foreign Policy, as well as NYT). The affirmative will argue that we have simply not used the right carrots.
  

Bill: Anti-Depressants vs. Clinical Therapy (Sen. Smith and Sen. Clark, Grand Ledge)

• Overview. The bill bars the prescription of anti-depressants to minors until after other clinical therapy options have been found to be ineffective. The penalty phase addresses the prescribing doctor. Often the use of anti-depressants by teens is linked to suicide. Some studies have suggested that there is a link, more recent articles perhaps not. Adding to the confusion is this study suggesting that one needs both drugs and clinical ("talk") therapy.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a fairly tight bill in terms of construction, though the initial sentence has its difficulties. It bars the prescription except if prescribed -- a sort of circular argument. The real action is in Section two. The question of age may also be useful to bring up. At 18, some teens will be full adults (physiologically) and so presumably able to take the meds without harm. Some are not. Does an arbitrary date hinder the purpose of the bill? One may also want to raise the question of whether the schedule of penalty is really adequate. The key focus is that doctors lose their license on the third prescription. That is substantive.
  
  
• Clash. The first battle to consider is the dichotomy of the bill, especially in light of evidence. Is it talk or is it drugs? What if there is a middle way? The preference for talk first appears to be an interposing of a social policy into a medical decision. An analogy would be how the US government controls funding on sex education to abstinence programs. Should social policy come before the doctor's decision? What about emergencies? Finally, you may want to raise up the question of how we determine what is the proper course to pursue: what kind of data do we use? Simply medical data (whatever works is good?), or do we also go with social norms? Second clash is the role of pharmacology to control our moods. For affs, this will be a big clash point. Philosophically, are we turning to pills or other mood altering items to help us Manage? What does this say about us? There are some good philosophical points to be made., but remember, back points with quotes or other evidence.

Bill: Cloned Meat (Sen. Le, City)

• Overview. Increasingly issues of technology show up in the agricultural arena, whether it is the addition of hormones to milk, varieties of genetic splicing, or the cloning of livestock for human consumption, as here. The recently announced permission by the FDA for use of cloned meat, will raise issues for consumers about food being pure and safe. This bill draws the use of cloning to the public eye through use of labeling regulation. A Senate bill spells out much of the same aspects of this bill, in of course greater detail.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a very clean bill. The most awkward moment is in line 1, where the bill addresses "companies that package meat" to meet the regulation. This has the impact of permitting retailers to buy unlabeled packaged meat and still maintain their freedom from this regulation. Suggested amendment: require all packaged meat bear the label, instead. This moves regulation from packer to the retailer (and so more easily corrected by shoppers -- it lowers cost of enforcement). Some may object that there is no penalty per se attached to this bill. Should this become an issue, one may amend the bill to refer to the Food and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.333) for penalties. Or an alternative Suggested Amendment: any person who violates this bill shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  
  
• Clash. Here's where things get interesting. Clash 1: is cloning safe. This is the basic argument. Clash 2: Reckless / Entrepreneurial US ag policy. Europe and US differ radically on the approach to Ag Tech. Clash 3: How do we incorporate technology into our food chain? This could be the key to feeding the world and reducing our energy footprint, etc. Others in negation will want to ask for more direct regulation. Another area perhaps worth thinking about is do we apply the regulation at the beginning of the process (a la Europe), or at the end, at the market level? Who then decides, the consumer or individual user, or the regulator? This is a case of two very conflicting philosophies.

Bill: Ban Abortion (Sen. Tiggs, Sen. Dunstan, Adams)

• Overview. Like many hot button bills, this one is at once full of passion and then left wide open as the authors substitute general or less-than-precise words. Funding and enforcement are especially in need of clearer thinking. That this is a hot button issue suggests that many arguments will be advanced that are premised either on emotional reasoning, or as a re-hashing of existing political stances (pro-Choice v. Right-to-Life, etc.). A lengthy cross-ex should be avoided. Vote against extension, force people to make their points in speeches. Otherwise, the cross-ex will consume speaking time for other bills and speakers. This is the real danger of this bill.
  
  
• Instrumental. There are so many problems with this bill it is hard to begin. Generally, the bill has inadequate definitions ("Illegal" -- felony? misdemeanor? civil? criminal? also "living being" -- what constitutes something as that?) You may find other issues to take up with this. A second area is that the bill does not adequately acknowledge current Constitutional standing, in particular one should note the absence of health and safety clauses for the woman. This opens a huge can of worms on its own. Finally, there is the question of implementation. The bill is directed to local and state government; the penalties include that of "manslaughter" (see 18 USC 1112) -- there is no such item as "first degree manslaughter" only voluntary and involuntary. With no additional funding, it is hard to see how the bill does not result in an unfunded mandate.
  
  
• Clash. The classic hot button issue. There are plenty of interesting issues to address here -- though the heat of the bill may not allow for them to heard well. Clash One: Who gets Government Protection? What is the criteria we use? What are the standards that we can all agree to? Clash Two: How do we safeguard health of the mother? Clash Three: the role of wealth. Those with means get the abortions, those without do not. How then do we make bills that are equitable in impact?
  

Why Is This All So Important?

Bob Herbert, in the New York Times writes:

In his biography of Tom Paine, John Keane referred to a pamphlet that Paine had written near the end of his life and said:

“Paine here touched on a quintessential feature of modern republican democracy: it is superior to all other types of government not because it guarantees consensus or even ‘good’ decisions, but because it enables citizens to reconsider their judgments about the quality and unintended consequences of those decisions.

“Republican democracies enable citizens to think twice and to say no, even to policies to which they once consented.”

In Legislative Debate/Congress we work on exactly this principle. We can consider or re-consider anything. In learning the rules, we learn to be citizens.

State Approaches

Next Saturday is the day!

The Second Annual Congressional Debate State Tournament will be held Saturday February 9, at the DeVos Center, on GVSU downtown campus. Some details will be coming shortly, including who is in which chamber.

Here is what we know:

We will have 9 students attending: Esther Creswell, Oana Damacus, Riet Groenleer, Catherine Khuu, Christina Le, Regie Pell, Emily Riippa, Abe Rinck, Nathan Ritsema.

There are 92 students registered, for chambers of 23 each.

The docket for each session is set -- analysis will follow shortly.

Food
At this time, a box lunch will be provided through GVSU. If one gets particularly desparate there is of course the Burger King at Pearl & Front (just north of the campus).

Schedule

• Registration 8:30 – 9:00 DeVos Center.
  As the host school we are asking you to arrive at 8:00 to help welcome students and schools get adjusted to the site.
  
• Session I 9:30 – 11:30 various
• Lunch 11:30 – 12:30 DeVos Center
  See Food above.
  
• Session II 12:45 – 2:45 various
• Super Session
  (finals) 3:30 – 5:30 TBA
  There will likely be a lot of people who want to see this. So be sure that you get there early. If you're parents are coming, give them the heads up.
  
• Awards 6:00 – 6:45 Loosemore Auditorium
  Politicians! Lawyers! Parents and Bigwigs! And we are hoping, even the media. Plus awards for the best bill. Invite the folks, and best of all you're out in time for Swirl.