Comments(1)
C.C. posted these two to my Facebook wall, and they’re interesting.
http://downloads.pfdebate.
http://www.publicformula.c
I read at them quickly, and my first immediate reaction was that this might be the best possible wording (not to mention some made-to-order materials). Next up I want to read them slowly.
—menick
Comments(2)
We need to focus in on the wording. These are the two CD topics used in the past by NFL:
- Civil disobedience is justified in a democracy.
- Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.
We like CD because it allows us to discuss in class the concept of social contract, and the rule of law, and then we can discuss morality, and then we put them together in discussions of this topic. No problem so far. But there is an issue, which was brought up to me by my daughter. It’s a “huge uphill battle; no one thinks civil disobedience is a bad thing.” She’s right. All we have to go on is MLK and Rosa Parks and Gandhi on one side, and not much on the other side. But if you word it right, “you have Nazis just following orders, and doctors refusing to prescribe plan B, or perform abortions” The question needs to be, at what point does individual morality trump social obligation? And the wording needs to get that across, or else the aff is all saints saving rights and the world and the neg is some babble about social contract.
How do we get around this? I have no easy answer. One thing might be to go with “acts of civil disobedience” rather than CD straight up. So we begin
“Acts of civil disobedience…”
Then what? Any ideas?
— Menick
Comments(0)
At Lexington, we agreed that the topic would be about civil disobedience. The feeling was that this topic was basic enough to stem from the sort of initial instruction that makes sense with novices, and that it would be reasonably debatable on both sides. I’ll put some discussion in as follow-ups to this post. (I’m still just getting the hang of the site and the software.)
—Menick