The Modest Novice LD Resolution

I started my novices this year with analysis of rights and the social contract. This is obviously elementary stuff one would want to start them with (although this year’s Sept-Oct of high school exit exams hardly seems inclusive of such discussion). Rights is a cornerstone of LD (and western philosophy); protecting those rights is theoretically the goal of society; hence the social contract. What does that all mean? That was our starting point.

Recommended reading: John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government.

Next session we move on to a different subject, morality. Morality, the determination of right and wrong, has many facets. I begin by asking the students if there is such a thing as right and wrong, and how they distinguish between the two. When I covered this at the MHLW, there was strong feeling that religion was the source of morality (true enough), but the problem is that we can’t draw on a religious answer to a secular question. We need an understanding of morality that we can use in a debate round.

The discussion of R/W usually is pretty lively, because students have firm belief in their ability to distinguish between the two. With luck, by the end of the session, you will have shaken that firm belief. In fact, revving up the trolley examples (which are, after all, classic tools of morality evaluation and not just the bad taste in many mouths left over from last year’s Sept-Oct) is not a bad idea at all.

In my morality discussion I usually go first for the idea of deontology versus consequentialism. We can say that an action is either right or wrong because of the action itself, or the results of the action. Simple enough. A deontological test is hard to explain (Kant’s categorical imperative) whereas the numbers of utility are easily understood. This leads us naturally into the question of whether there is, indeed, an objective right and wrong. If not, then we are in a relativistic, subjective universe. If so, all we have to do is find it.

So, a session on rights and SC, then a session on Morality. (Or as many sessions as it takes; I only meet with students once a week.)

The next step in ModNov, I think, is to address the topic head-on, a brainstorming session for the novices (and interested members of the team, given that many will be judging this topic). We need to understand civil disobedience. It is breaking the law. It is not inherently nonviolent nor inherently promotional, although these are the normal connotations; these should be defined and clear at the outset of a case. We need to understand that, in a democracy, we make the laws ourselves. That is what a democracy is (and some understanding of the General Will is important here). We are breaking the laws that we made, in other words. And why? Because of a moral view of that law (the morally justified). The brainstorming should include things like the history of CD from Gandhi on (or Thoreau on), Civil Rights in the US, etc.

Recommended (if not required) reading: Thoreau.

Then we need to brainstorm arguments. Why is the aff right? Why is the neg right? Do that for a while, then go home and write a case, and I’ll see you at the first tournament.

It’s true, anyone can comment, though to avoid spammers the first comment you make on a given account must be moderated by yours truly first.  Then you have free reign to say whatever you please.  Which might turn out to be unfortunate, but c’est la vie.

To make an actual post, however, requires further superpowers.  I’m sure once we get into the “making curriculum” part of this exercise, more people will want said powers.  Just let me know.

“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).

This website is intended for coaches of Lincoln Douglas in the Northeast, loosely defined as New England, New York and New Jersey, whose novices are going to tournaments using the repeating Modest Novice Topic, to post and share information, readings, research and materials useful in the teaching of LD Debate through this topic.