Share on Facebook

Book Cover

This book is a unique testament to the hard work and dedication our students put into our debate activity. The book would be a great addition to any school’s library and would be a great resource for anyone learning NFA-LD policy debate as each chapter contains all of the elements of a stock issues case and would be a great tool for teaching case construction. Students could be given one chapter and have all the evidence they need to construct a high quality case. Up For Debate also includes twenty-plus pages of references which would allow your students to find the primary sources and write sample cases based on the same articles the authors used during their debate rounds.

For more information and to purchase a copy please visit our website. The book is for sale now at $14.99 plus $2.95 shipping/handling. Thank you in advance for your support of this project.

Sincerely,
Danny Cantrell
Picket Fence Memories

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

CHAPTER 1. ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
Brandon Merrell & Thomas J. Schally (Western Kentucky University)

CHAPTER 2. MALARIA AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Nicole Thorspecken (Saint Anselm College)

CHAPTER 3. LANDMINES IN THE GREATER HORN OF AFRICA
Matthew Hogan (University of Nevada – Reno)

CHAPTER 4. IMMIGRATION FROM THE GREATER HORN OF AFRICA
Jessica Furgerson (Western Kentucky University)

CHAPTER 5. READY-TO-USE FOOD AID
Sam Derrick (Lafayette College)

CHAPTER 6. FEEDING THE HUNGRY IN THE GREATER HORN OF AFRICA
Anthony Delcourt (Saint Anselm College)

CHAPTER 7. COTTON SUBSIDIES
Elizabeth Wehler (Lafayette College)

CHAPTER 8. ADDING RELEVANCE TO THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Teevrat Garg (Lafayette College)

Share on Facebook

In our own informal NBC News survey of 100 people in downtown Havana, 63 said they preferred Obama to McCain, two preferred McCain, 13 had no preference and 22 declined to answer.

If a politics disadvantage is your fancy this may be the article for you =)

Share on Facebook

1. Strategic Concessions

I thought Senator Obama did an excellent job pointing out agreements he had with McCain to avoid opposing good ideas. Obama did a good job of pointing out the agreement and then adding a “but…” to separate himself from his opponent. We agree on the premise but disagree on the conclusion. That way you avoid having to debate everything and instead focus on only the big picture ideas.

Here is an example from the
transcript.

MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that’s in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.

…

LEHRER: I know, OK, let’s go to the latter point and we’ll back up. The point about your not having been…

OBAMA: Look, I’m very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.

But that’s Senate inside baseball. But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes — John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is…

I think more debaters would be well served to concede to more arguments in debates to focus on those issues that provide the clearest path to winning the debate. McCain on the other hand, kept saying that Obama is wrong, Obama is wrong. He was opposing everything he said which is a much harder task than only opposing the main ideas. One looks much stronger in the debate when they can actually point out agreements with the other side yet support one own’s side and argument. I don’t think any of Obama’s concessions made him look weak.

2. Being Civil

Senator McCain, at times, appeared to me at least to really lack civility towards Obama. Time magazine, in the reference below points out that:

But while mocking his opponent on a few occasions, which reflected his acute disrespect for Obama, he did so in an insufficiently sharp and detailed manner

Judges, I think at least subconsciously, are influenced by the civility of the debaters. It is harder to vote against someone who is civil and for someone who is being rude. As I watched the debate I really liked when the news showed the two men on split screen because you could see how each was reacting to each other’s points.

This quotation also brings up an important point – when we have disrespect towards our opponents – it shows. I know for me it took a lot of practice and dedication to force myself to act respectful towards the competition. My high school coach had always taught us to ‘destroy and conquer your opponents.’ That kind of approach makes it hard to treat them with respect – but let me assure you – debate becomes a lot more fun when you respect the other side!

This was one area that I thought Obama did not do as well on as well. A few times his reaction was rude as well. It’s harder in a public debate because the positions each side is attacking are those at the core of each candidate’s run for the presidency. That’s one reason I love academic debate – it provides a forum for people to present arguments that are separated from their own personal beliefs. Regardless if you like or dislike the Cuban embargo, debate allows you to both support and argue against the Embargo. This allows for a lot more respect because you know the debater is simply presenting the arguments on their side of the resolution – it’s not necessarily anything the debater believe in.

3. “Doesn’t understand”

This was one of McCain’s most unappealing tactics in the debate. I’ve found that usually the person accusing the other of ‘not getting it’ is actually the person who doesn’t get it – particularly in a debate. This is a pretty serious charge that McCain is leveling against Obama – not only is he wrong he lacks an understanding of the issue – and one that I think most people watching the debate see right through:

MCCAIN: I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. But the important — I’d like to tell you, two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.

I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here.

And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.

It reminds me of the tactic some debaters employ of calling every argument the other side presents “a fallacy!” No, a fallacy is a specific thing – a flawed argument. Just because the other side is presenting points in their favor which you disagree with mainly because of the side you are assigned in the debate does not make the arguments a fallacy. Senator McCain seemed to use “doesn’t understand” as a shortcut for “I disagree.” However, it comes across as rude and lazy to rely on the first phrase rather than the second.

What did you all think of the debates? How can you use what you saw in your NFA-LD debates?

Here are a few articles discussing the debate:
Time
Transcript
Presidential Debate Video

Share on Facebook

1) My school got a travel budget increase, so we’re going to travel a bit more and see some more midwestern L/D. (Okay, these aren’t necessarily reasons why YOU would be excited, this is my list.)

2) The Cuba topic is a fascinating one with lots of literature on both sides and a wealth of material ripe for both humor and pathos.

3) Constructive engagement was argued recently (by some of my debaters in fact) in CEDA, and so I think we understand the T arguments fairly well going in.

4) I think the topic lends itself to public debates in a way that could grow many LD programs.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts… now I’m off to write my Cuban Baseball Defectors Repatriation affirmative….

Share on Facebook

All the more reason to try an event that stresses good public speaking skills!

Share on Facebook

——————–

CALL FOR TOPICS: 2008-2009
A CALL FOR TOPICS will be included in the NFA Fall mailing requesting each school that has an interest in and an intent to participate in LD Debate in the following academic year to submit a topic area for consideration to the Chair of the NFA Lincoln-Douglas Committee (Dr. Marty Birkholt) by January 20th. Topic area briefs should be sent to the Chair of the LD Committee by e-mail: MARTYBIRKHOLT@CREIGHTON.EDU
In order to be accepted for consideration, the topic area must be in the form of a l-2 page brief which includes:
1. A statement of the significance of the topic area in current events;
2. A statement of why the topic is interesting, challenging, and/or provocative;
3. A statement of the perceived educational value of the topic area for debaters;
4. A brief bibliography of selected readings (5-10) that capture the nature of the controversy surrounding the area; and
5. Contact information should the committee need further clarification.
Remember, in order for a brief to be accepted, it must meet all of the above qualifications.
All briefs that are submitted will be confirmed by the Chair of the LD Committee. If you submit a brief and do not receive a confirmation, please call Dr. Marty Birkholt at 402-280-2524.
NARROWING PROCEDURES:
If more than ten briefs are submitted, the LD Committee will narrow the field using a weighted preferential voting system in which each first choice on a ballot receives 10 points and so on down to each tenth choice receiving 1 point. Any ties for tenth place will be broken by the LD Committee Chair.
By January 31st, the Committee will distribute the briefs to the LD Community and the membership of the NFA, for discussion and consideration. This mailing will include a ballot on which the school should rank its top three choices and return to the Chair of the LD Committee to be received by February 16th. The topic area will be selected by using the following method: ballots will be tallied using a weighted preferential voting system in with 1st place receiving 3 points, 2nd place receiving 2 points, and 3rd place receiving 1 point.
Please remember to return the ballots to Dr. Marty Birkholt, Director of Forensics, Department of Communication Studies, 2500 California Plaza, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178-0305
The LD Committee will formulate resolutions based on the selected topic area; the community is encouraged to submit their ideas and recommendations to the committee chair, Mark Hickman. A ballot will be sent out by March 16th with five (5) resolutions for consideration. In order for the a ballot to be counted, all five resolutions must be rank ordered. The ballots must be returned to the NFA President to be received by April 13th. A weighted preferential voting system with 1st= = 5 points, 2nd= 4 points, 3rd = 3 points, 4th = 2 points, and 5th = 1 point will be used. Ties will be broken by the President of the NFA, who may at his or her discretion consult with the LD Debate Committee.
RESOLUTION ANNOUNCEMENT:
The winning resolution will be known only to the President of the NFA until it is announced on AUGUST 1st.
The Lincoln Douglas Committee will be waiting to hear from you. If your school is involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate, this is your opportunity to become active in the selection of the topic area for 2008-2009. Dr. Marty Birkholt is waiting to hear from you. The only way the system will work is if you become involved in the process. There are definite deadline dates that have been established. On behalf of the L/D Committee and the NFA tournament staff, please take time to participate in this process during this academic year.
Also remember, your students that are engaged in Lincoln Douglas Debate wish to be considered in this process of topic and resolution selection. Please take time to include them in your consideration of topic areas and resolution selections.
The Lincoln Douglas Committee for this year is as follows:
Dr. Marty Birkholt, Chair, NFA Council Member, Creighton University
Vicki Karns, Tournament Director, Suffolk University
John Boyer, Elected Member, Lafayette College
Curt Gilstrap, Elected Member, Drury University
Nichelle McNabb, Elected Member, Otterbein College
Marcus Schultz-Bergin, Student Member, Washburn University

Share on Facebook