Card of the Week

NFL Affirmative 

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

Justice John Jay was one of the first Supreme Court Justices and had a large hand in shaping the legal background of the United States. Here, he explicitly recognizes the power of jury nullification. This is the first time that the power was formally recognized, and he clearly is in support of it. This will be a good card for any affirmative that wants to show the historical backing of the practice.

UIL Negative

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

-- David N. Diner. Major and Judge Advocate in the General's Corps. "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?" 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter 1994.

This card shows the importance of considering the interlocked nature of humans and their environment. We as humans tend to look at the big picture rather than small details. Why should we worry about killing off one species of fish that we can't even eat? Why should we worry about completely irradiating a certain type of fern? This card argues that even the smallest negative change in the environment can cause devastation that we can't even imagine. This is a good card to support the idea that biocentrism is the healthiest (or at least a very healthy) option for humans.

NFL Affirmative

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

This has become known as the Harm Principle. The Immunization Advisory Committee has used this principle to justify compulsory immunization when:

• An individual's decision could place others health in jeopardy

• The state's economic interests could be threatened by the costs of care for vaccine preventable illness, related disability or death and for the cost of managing vaccine preventable disease outbreaks

• The state's duty of educating children could be compromised.

Source: Washington State Board of Health, Immunization Advisory Committee. Criteria for reviewing antigens for potential inclusion in WAC 246-100-166. Available at: http://www.sboh.wa.gov/Meetings/2007/01-10/docs/Tab06d-PCV7_IAC_criteria.pdf

The Harm Principle and the Advisory Committee's stance on it is a useful tool for any affirmative to define and limit when the state can and cannot use mandatory vaccinations, which is necessary if they are to combat against the argument that degrading an individual's autonomy is bad. This card will allow you to justify limiting a person's autonomy for the good of the whole. This will function well under a value of Utilitarianism or justice, and you may even use the Harm Principle as a criterion.   

NFL Negative

10/30/2009

Janice Wood-Harper, School of Community Health Sciences and Social Care, University of Salford, NURSING ETHICS, "Informing Education Policy On Mmr: Balancing Individual Freedoms And Collective Responsibilities For The Promotion Of Public Health", 2005, p.asp

Ultimately, a balance needs to be struck between respect for parents' rights in making decisions for their children, and the exertion of undue pressure by health professionals acting as agents for a government policy that promotes restoration of public trust, is ethically acceptable, and promotes immunization benefits for society. The most likely and acceptable means of achieving this is through a public education policy that not only seeks to provide parents with comprehensible, substantiated information about the latest research findings on MMR risks, but also integrates arguments relating to the wider-reaching consequences for society, and for their children's children, of present day decisions that reject immunization. This would require all health professionals involved in informing and supporting parents' decisions to be effective, not only in communicating accurate information about risk assessment but also in increasing public awareness and acceptance of its responsibilities for the repercussions of vaccination refusals on public health.

This card suggests that compulsory vaccination is not necessary. Particularly in the United  States, we have had plenty of success with voluntary programs. School districts, universities, places of employment, and day care centers all require vaccinations. The success of these programs has been particularly good. The card also suggests that instead of compulsory vaccinations, a public education system about vaccines ought to be put into place. Arguably, the reason many do not elect to vaccinate themselves or their children is due to misguided beliefs about the negative side effects of vaccines. A compulsory vaccination process would not eradicate these misconceptions, but would instead have the opposite effect. It would most likely send those who believe in the negative effects of vaccines into a frenzy. Thus, the best way to achieve universal vaccination while still maintaining trust in both the government and the public health sector would be to increase education rather than to mandate vaccination. 

UIL

10/23/2009

At tournaments over the course of the last several weeks we have heard many LD debaters on the UIL topic debate issues that are not topical.  They have expanded the topic to include:

• People compromising their safety by listing their home address on their Facebook profile
• Whether murder is a form of expression
• Whether teachers should be able to go out with friends after the school day ends
• Whether children should be able to use the internet

Putting your address on your Facebook profile might be a bad move, but it doesn't seem to violate any professional standards of behavior.  Also, murder is done in real time, not online.  The topic asks us to debate social networking sites and freedom of expression, not freedom of expression in other areas of life.  Whether or not professional people can have a social life in real time isn't the topic either.  Debaters should instead discuss whether or not this social life can appear on their social networking pages. 

In the rounds we have judged on this topic debaters often forget that the topic is somewhat narrow-social networking sites and professional standards of behavior versus freedom of expression.  Make sure your case and your rebuttal arguments are all tied into the actual topic.  If you need help with arguments visit our topic background paper for some ideas.    

If you do digress into other issues, you should explicitly tie it into the topical debate.  Make sure it is very clear to the judge and the other debater how you are relating it to the topic.

If you debate someone who uses these issues in their case or rebuttal speeches, call them on it.  Tell the judge that their argument doesn't apply because the topic is asking us to address freedom of expression as it relates to social networking sites or standards of professional behavior as it relates to social networking sites.  With any luck you can make these bad arguments disappear!

UIL Affirmative

10/16/09

"Individuals feel that it is within their rights under the First Amendment to post information on a social networking site (Hodge, 2006). The First Amendment does protect an individual's right to speak, write, and gather freely so far as it does not cause harm or incite violence (Verga, 2007). An interesting dichotomy exists when students believe what they have written is private and protected when in reality it is neither (Hodge, 2006). An example is a student who posts negative comments about a faculty member, including threats of a violent nature, on his or her social networking site profile accessible to other members of the institution. The student does have the right to post this information under the First Amendment; however, if the faculty member or others in the community are threatened, the speech is not protected. In this situation, privacy rights are not violated because the student chose to share information in an open public forum."

-New Direction for Student Services, Winter 2008, Dianne M. Timm, Carolyn J. Duven

This card is useful when negative teams frame the debate in terms of our First Amendment rights.  This card speaks specifically within the context of students. While "professionalism" is typically directed towards working professionals, it is completely legitimate to argue that students are held to a certain level of professionalism. And even though this card does function within the context of students, it notes an important fact: The First Amendment does not protect all kinds of speech. The First Amendment, while it does protect speech, does not protect types of speech such as slander and "fighting words." These "fighting words" are what the card specifically talks about.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court defined "fighting words" as, "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," and ruled that they were among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." Basically they ruled that words that incite violence are not protected under the First Amendment.

It is clear that using "fighting words" on your social networking sites is unprofessional. It is important that affirmatives make that argument, and then also point out that all freedoms of expression are not covered by the United State's Constitution. This will be a very good attack for any negative that argues that the resolution is unconstitutional.

NFL Negative

10/9/09

Debate Central has heard several negative cases this semester that discuss Curriculum-Based External Exit Exams (CBEEEs).  This card of the week will focus on what those are and how negatives might use these in their case.

John Bishop, professor at Cornell, has written extensively on this subject.  Many of his publications define CBEEEs well for the purpose of your debate.  Basically he argues that CBEEEs are exams designed by education authorities and are administered to all or almost all students at the end of specified courses.  He says these tests should have real consequences for the schools and students and signal multiple levels of achievement in the subject, instead of only pass-fail.

Bishop has written in depth on the benefits he believes stem from these type of exams.  His arguments are perfect for the negative side.  Below is an excerpt from "How External Exit Exams Spur Achievement," from Education Leadership published in 2001.  This would make a great card in a negative case defending CBEEEs.

The trend toward instituting minimum competency exams in the United States is to ensure that all students have met at least the basic standards.  Curriculum-based external exit exams, however, provide better measures of students' level of achievement and create better conditions for learning.

• The results of an external exit exam report multiple levels of achievement in each subject.  In contrast, a minimum competency exam that generates only a pass-fail grade when passing is necessary to graduate requires standards low enough to allow almost everyone to pass after multiple tries.  Such low standards will not stimulate the majority of students to greater effort.  Exit exams, on the other hand, report each student's achievement level in the tested subject.  As a result, all students, not just those at the bottom of the class, have an incentive to do well on the exam.  The prospect of exit exams is more likely to improve classroom culture and all students' motivation to study.
• The external exit exam assesses more difficult material.  Because they are supposed to measure the full range of achievement in the subject, these exams contain more difficult questions and problems.  As a result, teachers spend more time on cognitively demanding skills and topics.  Minimum competency exams, by contrast, usually identify only those students who have failed to meet a rather low standard, so the tests do not include questions or problems that students near that borderline are unlikely to be able to answer or solve.  These low expectations may result in too much class time being devoted to practicing low-level skills.
• The curriculum-based external exams also function as end-of-course exams.  Because each test assesses the content of specific courses, the teachers of a course or course sequence will inevitably feel responsible for how well their students perform on the exam.  Grades on these tests can be a part of the overall course grade, a policy that further integrates the external exam into the classroom culture, maximizes the alignment between instruction and assessment, and enhances accountability.  Proponents argue that teachers will want to set higher standards and that students will be more attentive in class and more likely to complete demanding homework assignments.  Teachers drop their traditional role as evaluators of student success and instead join the students' team as coaches who help the team succeed on the state exam.

For more on CBEEEs for the negative:

John H. Bishop, Ferran Mane and Michael Bishop, "How External Exit Exams Spur Achievement," Educational Leadership, September 2001.

John Bishop, "Do Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems Enhance Student Achievement?" Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University ILR School, 1997.

John Bishop, "The Effect of National Standard and Curriculum-Based Exams on Achievement," Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University ILR School, 1997.

NFL Affirmative

10/2/09

"Unfortunately, pass-fail test scores do not tell administrators which teachers are most effective or how much students have improved.  Value-Added Assessment (VAA) is an alternative methodology that evaluates educational progress based on the growth of each student's knowledge base, rather than the attainment of particular test scores.  VAA was first implemented in Tennessee public schools in 1992.  The value-added measure for each student is the improvement (or decline) in his or her test scores over the course of a year.  Each student's past test scores are analyzed to predict the student's performance over the upcoming year.  These predictions are then compared to the student's actual scores at the end of each school year.  Only those students who meet or exceed their predicted scores are considered to have made adequate progress.  Teachers are deemed exceptional if their students surpass predictions, effective if students meet them, and ineffective if students fall below them....The analysis provides a more objective standard for evaluating teachers and their teaching methods.  Further, it gives parents a way to determine if a school serves their children's educational needs.  It allows parents with the option of school choice to see how well a school caters to the needs of students with similar characteristics to their own child or children, so they can make a better-informed decision.  This is important because not every school serves every student equally well; while a school may be "exemplary" by conventional standards, it may be markedly lacking in how well it serves certain groups of students."

---Sean Shurtleff and Jesus Loredo, "Beyond No Child Left Behind: Value-Added Assessment of Student Progress," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 636, October 23, 2008.

Some resolutions lend themselves to counterplan ACs.  This means the affirmative can offer an alternative to the prescribed negative advocacy.  The affirmative must prove that high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams in order to graduate.  One way to do this is to show that there is a better alternative. 

Value-Added Assessment (VAA), discussed above, is one such alternative.  As the affirmative you can argue that VAA is superior to standardized exit exams.  While exit exams may hold schools accountable for performance, pass-fail test scores monitor schools, not specific students or teachers.  Groups of students, especially students with learning disabilities, can fall through the cracks.  Arguing that something other than exit exams better protects a special class of students is a strong argument on this topic.

Of course, you will need to prove that your alternative is mutually exclusive with standardized exit exams.  This means you need to show why they cannot or should not both exist at the same time.  You may need to provide reasons why standardized exit exams are uniquely bad.    

UIL Negative

9/25/09

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct, that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas, that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."

- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes; Abrams v. United States; In dissent; 250 U.S. 616; 630; 1919.

This card by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is also quoted in the topic overview, argues that truth can only be realized when the free trade of ideas is available and is being used. He states that the "best test" of what is true is if it is accepted in the "competition of the market" of ideas. As the negative you can use this quote to argue that suppressing freedom of speech or freedom of expression undermines the market of ideas. Companies that suggest or mandate that you restrict what you say online also limit the market of ideas. Without all ideas available, Holmes would argue that the "ultimate good desired" (which is truth and the best policy option) either cannot be reached, or would be more difficult to reach.

This card would function well in a negative case as it shows the harm in valuing professionalism over freedom of expression. Though this card does not specifically talk about freedom of expression as it relates to social networking sites, it is broad enough to encompass them. Affirmatives can use this card to show that the free trade of ideas is a good thing. Arguably, the most effective mechanism for the free trade of ideas is the Internet.   Affirmatives can say that the Internet uniquely supports freedom of speech because it is free, easy to access, and widely accessible.

NFL Affirmative

9/18/09

 Last Thursday, September 10, 2009, the Alabama Board of Education voted to eliminate the Alabama High School Graduation Exam.  Examining the reasons the school board gave for choosing to abandon the exam may give you arguments for your affirmative case and help you argue that high school students should not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

Officials in Alabama said the changes are designed to make the system more cost-efficient, improve classroom education and student preparation for life after graduation.  We examine each of these arguments below.

Classroom time.  In Alabama, 15 instructional days each year are used on to prepare for and administer the current exit exam.  Under the new plan, students will be tested through end-of-course exams given as final exams covering the material they are learning in each particular class.  Special time will not be taken away from regular classroom instruction to prepare for or take a test.

Cost.  Deputy state superintendent Tommy Bice estimates that the state will save $4 million by doing away with graduation exams.  Creating the test, preparing teachers and students, administering the test and grading the test all add up to a hefty price tag.  Bice argues that end-of-course exams given as final exams will be much less costly. 

Preparation for College and Work.  According to Claudia Williams, chief academic officer for Birmingham city schools, the problem with graduation exams is that "the focus for children who don't pass it is so great, and so much time is spent helping them to pass it, but it does nothing to prepare them for life outside of high school."  The new Alabama plan focuses more on readiness for college and work.   All 11^th graders will be required to take the ACT college entrance exam and take work and college assessments periodically throughout middle and high school.  As an affirmative you can argue that this focus is more beneficial to students in the long run.

Affirmatives can use them as a real world example of a state that has found that too much time teaching to an exit exam decreases education and preparedness for life after high school.  You can also argue that it is prohibitively expensive for many states such as Alabama. 

Source: "Alabama Scraps High School Graduation Exam, Replaced with End-of-Year Subject Tests," The Birmingham News, September 14, 2009.