… The NFA-LD committee has just finished receiving results from the 2010-2011 coaches NFA-LD survey that was sent out two weeks ago to all active NFA member schools. Apparently, preliminary results indicate that a majority of debaters have decided against engaging the substantiative issues of the mental health topic all year. Beyond one or two cases debaters have generally resorted to topicality arguments instead of key issues identified in the topic paper for last year …

I won’t quote the whole thing detailing what’s going on this year – just read it on the IE-L or watch this video message from the committee. I must say that I have to agree based on the word on the street. The real issue though is the course of action the board has decided to take:

Therefore, we stand resolved that in order to debaters to really learn about mental health policy in the United States (AND NOT OTHER COUNTRIES/PLANETS!) we are hereby suspending all balloting for the 2011-2012 topic. Instead, we will repeat this topic for next year in the hopes that debaters will really research the 3-4 case areas available to them and not only 1-2.

Your thoughts? Read more information here.

Share on Facebook

No excuses. Go Vote.

Share on Facebook

Good Introduction card

More cases of severe mental illness are being reported among college students than a decade ago, as more young people with mental health issues tackle a post-secondary education and are open to getting help when they need it, a new U.S. study shows

Possible harm?

The use of prescription medications by students to treat psychiatric illness has also risen significantly over the past decade, the research team noted.

Your thoughts?

Share on Facebook

I saw this link from the Department of Transportation which may spell doom for the case. Some choice quotations from the text although there is a lot of video as well – note, this is from the Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

And the Obama Administration hasn’t been sitting idle on the bike front this past year either.

Just last month through our TIGER program, we funded major bicycle projects in Indianapolis and in the Philadelphia-Camden-Trenton region.

And our ongoing inter-agency DOT-EPA-HUD partnership on sustainable communities actively encourages planning for walkability and bikability. We think livability means giving folks the flexibility to choose their own mobility.

(this last one could be a good answer to USFG not reforming transpotation and/or federalism – this action didn’t cause civil war!)

If you plan on attending NFA or more NFA-LD tournaments this year it’s time to dust off those inherency theory blocks and insert some solid evidence about US domestic transpotation policy with respect to bike lanes. As a judge I would look very favorably on an inherency press that there is little standing in the way to the affirmative case. If you can assert that NFA-LD should be judged on a stock issues paradigm and the affirmative can’t prove an inherent barrier – you win as negative. Any thoughts on Bike Lanes as a case?

Here are some additional links to Bike lane information we used when writing our case:

Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
Guardian Article
Bicycle Universe

Bike Lanes Considered Harmful

Driving Less from UC Transportation Center

Bicycles and Communities from UC Transportation Center

some more recent links:

Mexico City
Bike Culture
Riverside
Portland Police

Share on Facebook

From http://debatekc.edublogs.org/2009/10/29/%E2%80%9Ccompetitive-and-slightly-unhinged%E2%80%9D-why-college-debaters-dominate-washington%E2%80%99s-political-scene/Alfred Charles Snider, Global Debate, Nov 2009

You should read the whole article.

Share on Facebook

The “race” between the automobile and public transit is over. The auto has won. Nothing short of an economic debacle that drastically reduces urban standards of living can overturn this outcome.

Hmm… sounds a bit like the past year . Here is a great example of an evidence indict. If someone quotes this article to explain why public transit would not be utilized they would probably not include this paragraph. But having it available as an answer for your public transit affirmative case to use in the 1AR would look amazing to any judge.

Here are some good links to additional negative research areas:
Cato
Heritage
Reason

Share on Facebook

Saw this article in the NYT today on Road and Rail Spending Proposals Stall as Lawmakers Punt on Revenue Fix

Off the Hill, however, most transportation experts agree you cannot address the nation’s infrastructure without a new revenue source.

As some contended on this post (and this one on funding) this quotation is proof that addressing the “financial infrastructure” is a critical part of this year’s topic. I agree – however, I think it’s for the negative rather than the affirmative =)

But with very few exceptions, politicians have been loath to even suggest raising taxes or imposing other user fees during the current economic recession. And many in the transportation community are warning that any reform efforts — including attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions — will fail if Washington does not find the political courage to tell Americans that they will have to foot the bill.

To me this is a perfect generic negative solvency argument against any case… but we’ve had that debate so I don’t want to rehash that topic but thought I’d point out this article so everyone can cut some good evidence either way you see this issue! We’ll see how it plays out in rounds!

Share on Facebook

A new survey by architecture and engineering firm HNTB Corp. confirmed a none-too-surprising belief among American citizens when it comes to figuring out how to maintain and repair our bridge and roadway networks: while most agree U.S. roads and bridges need help, consensus remains elusive on how to pay for it. Yet what came as a shock to me is that apparently – according to HNTB’s findings, now – we Americans think TOLLS are the way to go to fix our roads.

Still, this survey reveals some interesting thought lines when it comes to how the general public thinks we ought to pay for transportation infrastructure. And one other important thing, too: Americans realize improvements won’t come for free … and that delays could make the problem bigger and ultimately tougher to handle.

NOTE: there may be some methodological problems with their survey but the page has some good links and a good introduction to the topic.

Share on Facebook

Not being someone who likes to duplicate work already being done, I point you to these outstanding video lectures from the Cal National Debate Institute on various aspects of policy debating…

While they are not focused exclusively on NFA-LD debate they are certainly from some of the most prominent debate coaches in the country and could serve as a good first step for many novices to get up to speed on the debate.

Watch these videos and then go ask your coaches for help =) Sydne at RCC was videotaping a lot of the lectures at her camp and I hope we can post those here soon. Also look for some new NFA-LD videos soon from the PSCFA Seminar in September.

Share on Facebook

This website has the potential to revolutionize debate by removing the cost of transportation and housing from debate tournaments and practice. Check it out and if you can’t make it to the RCC camp tomorrow check out my lecture on affirmative case construction at 10:30am PST.

Share on Facebook