The Modest Novice LD Resolution

Regarding our story so far, we have “In the USA today, civil disobedience is an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”

Sara Sanchez adds to the discussion: “I think Palmer’s suggestion about ‘violent’ in the res is necessary to give the neg any ground at all.  I think the idea that civil disobedience is necessary in a demo is really hard to negate without that qualifier.”

Which would give us “In the USA today, (or in a democracy) violent civil disobedience is an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”

The reigning alternative includes the concept, following the law v. following your conscience. That would give us something like this:

“In the USA today, (or in a democracy) it is something-or-other to follow the law v. following your conscience.”

I continue to feel that the follow wording wouldn’t be optimal. We are talking novices and their training, and I’d be hard-pressed to convince anyone, novice or otherwise, to follow the law when it went against their conscience. This is a private matter, and one that certainly doesn’t lend itself to discussion within a justice paradigm. The goal of the topic is to introduce basic skills and ideas, not necessarily to be the best LD topic per se. Any topic picked will have flaws, I’m sure. I’d prefer to concentrate on justice for a starter rather than morality.

I am beginning to see the point of violent, as CP suggested and as SS confirms. It does answer some of Kate’s issues regarding debating against Rosa Parks. I think it’s probably best moved out of the US, once the violence is added. And I’ve modified “is” to “can be” for the sake of the theory-argument novices who will demand an absolute.

“In a democracy, violent civil disobedience can be an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”

(By the way, how does one add a posting here if they’re not me?)

“In a democracy the USA today, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice tactic for achieving justice.”

“In the USA today, civil disobedience is an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”

This gives us the modern context, and it removes the rather aff-biased “fight for justice.” The more I look at it, the more I can live with appropriate, as it is not a loaded LD term in any way (or a loaded term in any other way, I don’t think). I can address appropriateness perhaps from a moral point of view, or legal justice point of view, or any other way. I worry that including the word moral in the resolution would entail a lot of discussion of classical moral schemas, which is a bit much for the average novice (witness throwing one fat guy gentleman of exceptional girth over the bridge to stop the trolley to save five Mother Teresas further on down the track).

“In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.” This was the January 2008 PF topic, and I’m having a hard time finding issues with the wording for Modest Novice. Is there any reason not to just say this is the one?

One of the big problems with civil disobedience as a topic is that, as my daughter points out, someone might have to attack Rosa Parks, which is something of a mug’s game. If a law is unjust, it is not hard to make an argument that the law should not be obeyed. The problem is proving that the law is unjust in the first place. One burden of the aff is proving an intrinsic injustice is taking place in the law being disobeyed. That should be a fairly large burden most of the time, i.e., finding a law that specifically limits rights, given that laws exist to protect rights in the first place, at least in a democracy. A core issue with CD at some point is that, just because you don’t like a particular law, that does not warrant your not obeying it. I may not like the law that says I have to drive 55 mph, and I may have a car that is capable of going 120 mph, and the road may be entirely clear of traffic, and I can be as unimpaired in my driving skills as the day is long, but that does not make driving over the speed limit any less illegal.

Question one: Should we say, in a democracy, or, in the US?

If we are defending, in theory, Rosa Parks, we always win. Analysis of the past can inform the present, but should not determine the outcome of the round. Do we want to argue civil rights and Martin Luther King v. Thurgood Marshall, demonstrating injustice or changing laws to eliminate injustice, or do we want to argue something more contemporary, like certain aspects of abortion or maybe same-sex unions. I don’t imply that civil rights is a finished issue, I only suggest that arguing the history of civil rights may not leave a lot of room for the neg. Contemporary issues may not have the bite, though, or may be too biting in the case of abortion.

Question two: Should we add to the wording, today? “In the USA today, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.”

If we demur from this sort of timeliness, then I would look at the concept of appropriate. When is it not appropriate to follow your conscience? You’d be hard-pressed in our relativistic philosophical universe to find an argument that claims that you have some other objective beacon for morality other than religious dogma, which does not exactly make for good debate.

Question three: Should we say necessary instead of appropriate? “The best” instead of appropriate?

I’m not suggesting, beyond the fact that I don’t want to argue against Rosa Parks, that I’ve pinned anything down here. The question is, which wording, or what other wording, gives us the most bang for the buck? Taking this wording as is from the PF topic is still pretty good. Can we improve it in any way?