The Actual NFL wording
Diane weighed in, in the comments, with the actual wording the NFL used when this topic came up in the NFL last. Who’d've thunk actual research and knowing things might help:
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified
I kinda like it. It does introduce morality, but really, this topic has to introduce morality within the framework of rights. As Jim said, the major grounds that civil disobedience can be justified is on personal morality, but it does limit Aff to that ground, which makes the novice ideal debate a straight up personal morality vs societal rights contest. Also, the word “justified” is also less problematic with “morally” hanging in front of it.
menick said,
Wrote on April 16, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Are we going full circle here? http://www.modestnovice.org/2009/02/09/thoughts-on-the-wording/
This puts the blame squarely on my offspring, for getting us off the (easy) straight-and-narrow to begin with.
palmer said,
Wrote on April 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
You expect me to remember something posted 10 tournaments ago?
It was an instructive circle, at least.
Christian said,
Wrote on April 16, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Why limit the resolution to speaking morally?
Most (all?) approaches to the topic will take a moral stance anyway, so the only thing you’re doing is taking a risk of limiting out cases and negatives.
“Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”
Democracy – Gives neg ground for “alternative options”(legal channels, voting, etc). Limits out abusive radical affirmatives that talk about Tienanmen Square as an act of CD.
+2 Neg points.
Score – Aff: 0. Neg: 2.
Civil Disobedience – Most lit. calls it non-violent. A lot of the literature is affirmative, though there is negative ground. Introduces basic Social Contract theory, among other basic LD arguments.
+1 Neg points. +3 Aff points (lit, non-violence).
Score – Aff: 3. Neg: 3.
Appropriate – Keeps it very balanced. It gives both aff and neg ground.
Aff: No high threshold to meet; only need to prove appropriateness to win. Appropriate intrinsically connotes something other than best or most, or even top 10 – it just has to meet a standard of reasonability.
Neg: Keeps ground fair. If there are alternatives that achieve the same means, but without {negative offense here}, then it is not appropriate. If Neg Disads to justice outweigh aff advantages, you still vote negative.
Ground for both!
Justice – Good value to discuss as a novice. Not biased towards either side. We’re not really disputing this.
Thus, I think this is the best topic –
“Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate tactic for achieving justice.”