Online IntensiveNational ChampionshipRegional Championships

2022 Debate Resolution Live Q&A

Office
April 12, 2021
by Office

Submit your questions in the comment box below before joining the live Q&A with the Debate Committee on April 15th from 6pm to 7:30pm CT.

We look forward to reading your questions and seeing you all interact in the comments!

15 comments on “2022 Debate Resolution Live Q&A”

  1. Resolution #1 on convicted prisoners. Would this lend it self to discussing specific crimes (murder, drug use, gang violence, etc.) in detail? My concern is younger debaters getting more of an education that they bargained for.

  2. With Resolution 1 in LD, how exactly could we see the Negative side play out? It seems as if the resolution is unbalanced in the first place because all Aff has to do is prove one situation where conditions are morally justified. Aside from this, it never says what conditions would be imposed, hence making it harder for Neg to prove his/her side. For example, if Aff says that in order to provide humanitarian aid we must take away the weapons of those whom we provide aid to in order to maintain the safety of aid-workers, how would Neg argue against that?

  3. Question sent to the office by Rachel Brown:

    "I agree with Lora Cavanna: convicted prisoners and younger debaters/juniors who enjoy watching/flowing. In addition to her list, what about the federal government funding sex changes for prisoners, transgenders demanding to be in facilities with opposite sex, etc? How will this be dealt with? I understand it's a high school debate league, but juniors/younger debaters are often in the room..."

  4. TP rez 1 question: My dad was listening to a podcast and the podcast was talking about how in the constitution it states that there should be no federally convicted prisoners. It should all be done at the state level. I have not done much research on this, but was this considered when choosing the resolution?

  5. I can’t make the meeting tonight, but our club is hoping for resolution #1 you can change the word “justified” to “permissible.” Thanks for considering!

  6. With the second TP resolution, would recognizing new tribes be included in reforming policies regarding federally recognized tribes in the United States? Or can debaters only reform policies regarding the tribes who are currently recognized?

  7. TP resolution 3: I have heard of a rise in 3D printed homes for the homeless. Such a house costs roughly $5,000. Would a plan dealing with 3D printed houses be considered topical, and was this considered when when deciding on the resolution?

  8. Resolution 2 for TP. I love the idea of the resolution and I love how broad it is, but do you think we’ll see a lot of cases that are barely topical because they “affect” native americans? I know that’s not a unique problem to this resolution, but I do wonder if it’ll be exacerbated.

  9. TP Resolution 2: With race being a hot political issue today, do you expect judge bias to be a factor in judge decisions?

  10. It certainly would be better in my opinion if justified was changed to permissible ( As Janet Mckay said) on resolution #1.

  11. TP rez 1: Do you foresee these debates surrounding why these prisoners are in jail as a main focus, or is that not something to worry about?

  12. For res 1 (TP)— how can you easily avoid coming to moral issues some may have against some of prison policies and keep it factual and “policy” debate?

  13. For TP resolution 2- How can a team best explain POLICY without appearing ignorant of the past and indifferent to cultural communities?

  14. I like the idea of TP Resolution #3 because the cases would likely affect the judge, and even an inexperienced judge would already have some background knowledge about housing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get regular updates on events, announcements, articles and more!


© 2021 Christian Speech and Debate League. All rights reserved. Powered by GDN Web Media

cross-circle