2010 Winning Topic Paper
As discussed earlier this year when we tried submitting a Southern California Topic paper each participating school in NFA-LD has the ability to submit potential topic papers for the next year’s topic.
Here is the topic paper that was submitted for this year’s topic. I’ve copied/pasted from the PDF so you can view it here:
E. U.S. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: Submitted by Creighton University
A statement of the significance of the topic area in current events:
Mental health services are important because an individual’s mental well-being is important to their general well-being, and the well-being of other individuals in the person’s life. A variety of challenges exist for current mental health services like overcoming the existing stigma of mental health issues, providing adequate services, making the services more accessible to demographics like the homeless, and improving the effectiveness of mental health services.
A statement of why the topic is interesting, challenging, and/or provocative:
Mental health is an important facet of the public’s health with significant social and economic ramifications for individuals who experience psychological issues. On the other hand, there are several difficulties surrounding the provision of mental health services; Mental health services are only one of many social services that states and the federal government distribute, often on very tight budgets where an increase in one services decreases the availability of another. The provision of mental services is controversial politically, and significant changes could alter the political landscape that states and the federal government currently navigate. Last, increasing the federal role in the provision of mental health services can further complicate an already confusing variety of services available and muddle the relative responsibilities of the federal and state governments.
A statement of the perceived educational value of the topic area for debaters:
This topic area has considerable educational value in two areas: First, mental health issues are heavily stigmatized today, and learning about mental health allows debaters to develop informed opinions that reject the stigma surrounding mental health. Second, mental health services give debaters the opportunity to learn about the specific challenges mental health services experience, and the general area of domestic social service policy, while keeping the topic area manageable.
A brief bibliography of selected readings (5-10) that capture the nature of the controversy
surrounding the area:
“Adequacy of the Mental Health System in Meeting the Needs of Adults Who Are Visually
Impaired”
http://www.afb.org/JVIB/jvib001313.asp
Although the article focuses on the difficulties the visually impaired face in mental health
services, the introductory description of the current state of the mental health service system
clearly explains the systems current systemic shortcomings.“Disparities in Mental Health Treatment in U.S. Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups:
Implications for Psychiatrists”
http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/12/1600“Inadequate Mental Health Care Plagues Rural America”
http://www.cfra.org/newsletter/2009/06/inadequate-mental-health-care-plagues-rural-america“Prison Mental Health Crisis Continues to Grow”
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/1.1.full
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml
National Mental Health Information Center
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/Contact information should the committee need further clarification.
Landon Ross
Creighton University
[email in original]
Hopefully this gives you a few ideas on the topic.
Now, an interesting area of debate theory topic papers bring up is the idea of “Framers Intent.” I’ll explore that in a future post but here is a Law Review Article for the idea behind framers intent outside of debate. Essentially, does what the author of the topic paper, or the framer of the topic (NFA-LD Committee), intended carry any legitimacy when discussing what the topic means? More on that later…
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Yo Michael, why does the neg win if they win T? The rules just say that it is a voting issue, but what does that mean ;p
I have always wondered why teams should lose for not being topical…
Really though. Lets say someone runs a K of T and wins that. They still lose the T debate, but win the K of T.
because if the affirmative won without being topical (as debated out between the two debaters) the topic becomes meaningless and we might as well not be doing NFA-LD, single resolution, researched debate.
In a world where the K of Topicality wins rounds WHY would anyone even be remotely connected to the topic? You could pick a much more significant issue (nuclear war anyone?) and win EVERY single round. Further, as soon as you run your nuclear war case, now we have to research mental health and nuclear war.
You then run an asteroids case, and the research burden is expanded to 3 areas… you then run a HIV case and the research burden is 4 areas… and the original topic is no longer necessary for the activity.
Now, I’m not saying that type of debate is bad (NPDA/parliamentary debate works like that) but it completely defeats the purpose of having a single topic all year so that debaters can be researched going into the debate round.
Your scenario defeats that entire reason for having nfa-ld.
@ Matt – Give me a break. Why shouldn’t trial jurors and/or appellate judges simply ignore the law and do what they think is “best for JUSTICE?”
I know you’re VERY intelligent, and, more importantly, you can read and comprehend plain English. Either a judge is willing to follow the “black letter law” set forth in paragraph 2, or, if not, that judge shouldn’t be judging at any tournament which, contrary to LDOC, purports to be conducted pursuant to the NFA-LD rules. That judge – who may be a TRUE DEBATE GENIUS – should be judging HS team policy, NDT/CEDA tournaments, NPDA debate, and/or even NFA-LD tournaments, like LDOC, which openly reject the NFA-LD Judging Paradigm in their invitations.
However, for the judges willing to “follow the rules,” if the tournament invitation says those rules apply (and almost all West Coast tournaments do), The Judging Paradigm (which, as you know, are not exactly my cup of tea [pun very much intended]) is clear and unambiguous on the T issue.
Forget my debate history for a moment; as a retired attorney, arbitrator, and Judge Pro Tem, I assure you that the NFA-LD debate T rule (especially at page 1, paragraph 2) is as spot-on easy to interpret as the “Anti-Spread Rule” is an unmitigated FUBAR mess.
T is one argument – the most important one – where NFA-LD stands head and shoulders above the NDT/CEDA and NPDA and high school team policy because the rules make T an easy and understandable issue…BOTH for the debaters, AND for literate and ethical judge.
One more point…
Before we get into a big rhetorical battle over “education” and/or “academic freedom,” let me add this FOR THE RECORD:
1. SOPHISTRY is NOT education; it is the antithesis of education. And “academic freedom” must not be allowed as a rationalization for intellectual anarchy and free-floating fantasizing.
2. This year’s topic is a dream come true for GOOD
K-debaters. For example, this topic is an open invitation for the Negative to run any one of the following “new” K’s (without excluding most of the traditional K’s):
(a) The “Anti-Psychartry” K (Szacz);
(b) The “Mad-Pride” K; and
(c) The “Social Darwinism” K
And anybody not knowing what I mean by this needs to start hitting the books! 
But Danny is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT (Word!) when he says that a “Topicality-K,” in specific, and/or a generic “Rules-K” is completely “antithetical” to this event. Such tactics, if permitted by judges, make a conscientious coach’s job IMPOSSIBLE to do! A coach cannot possibly prepare anyone for “the big game” – ANY KIND OF GAME – when the rules might or might not be followed… depending upon the whims/preferences of individual referees.
If people want to have an event – eg., “College LD Debate” -which would, in fact, be one-person NDT/CEDA debate*, groovy… but then it should be a plainly identified and advertised as a separate and independent debate format – “College LD Debate,” and not passed off as “NFA-LD Debate.”
*This is, in effect, what I understand Steve DD to be doing with LDOC. And – again – I COMMEND HIM for both his creativity AND his intellectual integrity. More power to him and the debaters/coach who want to play that game! 
But my school, my students, and I want to compete in NFA-LD debate – AS ADVERTISED -, NOT one-person NDT/CEDA debate. That’s what we’re working our asses off today to get ready for this season. That’s the event I THINK (and I hope he’ll correct me if I’m in error) Danny Cantrell created this site to promote.
And – Dammit – we should be allowed that opportunity. We coaches and students who have the audacity to think that a student who is a good “platform speaker” can ALSO be a good “debater” are people, too. Different strokes for different folks.
Sorry for jumping on my soap box. But this is important to me. Much more compelling is that it’s also important to my students… and, I suspect a lot of other students at a lot of other schools in the SoCal area.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
@Danny – You want to talk “Framer’s Intent?” I think that’s great!
Now, let me counter with “Strict Constructionism.” Were I a “strict constructionist,” I’d point to p. 1, paragraph 2, lines 3-5 of the “Paradigm for Judging” as definitive authority for the proposition that the ONLY sanctioned standard for a negative topicality argument is, and I quote: “… the affirmative plan has VIOLATED THE PARAMETERS SET BY THE RESOLUTION (emphasis added)…”
In other words, if the Negative proves “violation,” the Negative wins T (and the debate); if the Negative doesn’t prove “violation,” then the Affirmative wins T, and the debate goes on to other issues! Any/all other arguments about T, as my Con Law Prof used to say, “…would be pointless rhetoric…mere surplusage.”