Gearing up for Debate: Novice Topics
August 1, 2006 – 3:59 pm by: Nick BubbThis brand, spanking new WFD column will offer articles as students prepare for the upcoming debate season. Today's Gear Up takes a look at a perennially controversial issue in Wisconsin Debate - the Novice Topics. Each year, I have heard endless complaints about the topics chosen by the organization. For example, Vouchers not being included in the education topic, or potentially non-topical novice topic areas. This discussion attempts to pre-empt the groan. If we all can talk through a series of topics, then hopefully we'll end up with a more agreeable and educational set.
8 Responses to “Gearing up for Debate: Novice Topics”
Take a look at the WDCA Forums for some sample novice topics from other states.
By Adam Jacobi on Aug 1, 2006
Adam, do you know when the WDCA Exec board will be meeting to decide/prepare the limited novice topics?
By Michael Traas on Aug 2, 2006
Mike, I just sent you an e-mail.
By Adam Jacobi on Aug 2, 2006
I think the following four cases would provide excellent limits for the novice division. This list includes two military cases (the draft and DADT) and two non-military cases (Peace Corps and AmeriCorps), all of which have a very healthy literature base and which can be reasonably debated on both sides without the use of counterplans or generic disadvantages.
1. The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in Peace Corps by mandating budgetary support for 50,000 volunteers.
2. The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces by enacting the Universal Service Act of 2006.
3. The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in AmeriCorps by enacting the Call to Service Act of 2001.
4. The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in the Armed Forces by repealing 10 U.S.C. 654 and its implementing guidelines ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell") such that sexual orientation is no longer a rationale for discharge from the Armed Forces.
The negative gets to say that conscription is bad and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is good against the military cases and has a lot of solid arguments against the other two (e.g. military tradeoff arguments, case/significance/solvency arguments, Peace Corps/AmeriCorps bad arguments, spending arguments, etc.). They could also argue that DADT isn't topical, if that's something you feel is appropriate for novices.
Four cases, all big and straight-up, with predictable negative ground. Hopefully someone can share these with the WDCA committee… I'd be happy to respond to any criticisms/concerns about this list if that would be helpful.
Thoughts?
~Bill
By Bill Batterman on Aug 2, 2006
Hi Bill, Thank you for sharing your topic ideas. I will definitely make sure they're shared at our meeting. Could you cross-post them on the WDCA forum (see link above), too? Thanks, Adam
By Adam Jacobi on Aug 3, 2006
I like #2, but the others are too limiting. Instead of specifying that affirmatives must use one of the six national service groups/organizations (because the framers gave the option to all to use at least 1 and at most 6), I think that the novice topics should focus on the manner in which an increase in national service is achieved, regardless of what group/organization gets the increase.
By Steve Finch on Aug 3, 2006
Does anyone know when the WDCA tournament calendar will be posted?
By WDCA Supporter on Aug 4, 2006
Greetings… The WDCA Executive Committee is meeting this weekend, and will discuss the calendar. There are several holes and potential changes, so rather than confusing people, we are waiting until we can clarify who's hosting when. Shortly thereafter, we'll post the calendar. Thank you for your patience.
By Adam Jacobi on Aug 4, 2006