Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: J.W. Patterson <jwpatt00@pop.uky.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list CX-L <cx-l@debate.net>
Subject: Kentucky LD Fellows Debate #1
THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
Lexington, KY, June 29, 1999
GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT
SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS:
Kentucky Institute LD Fellows staged the first demonstration debate of the
1999 institute on Sunday afternoon, June 27. Andrew Rothschild (Cypress Creek, TX) Affirmed against Sean O'Donnel (La Cueva, NM) on the Negative. Following the debate, institute instructors TOM ZIMPLEMAN, University of Chicago, and ALEX GOMEZ, University of Michigan, filed the following report:
"Resolved: In America, government welfare provisions for the poor ought to take priority over individual economic freedom.
AFFIRMATIVE: Andrew Rothschild NEGATIVE: Sean O'Donnell
Rothschild's affirmative case began with the value premise of justice and proposed that a just government must fulfill the criteria of improving the well-being of its constituents and accepting responsibility for and correcting social harms. Rothschild's first contention argued that the unequal distribution of resources in a capitalist society forced its members to begin life at vastly unequal, and therefore unjust, starting places in life. Rothschild further argued that poverty was a social creation, the result of artificial processes of consolidation and acquisition that work for solely for the benefit of a select few. The first contention ended with the observation that since an artificially constructed marketplace made the accumulation of wealth possible, the recipients of that wealth had a natural duty to return portions of that wealth to less-fortunate participants in the marketplace. Rothschild's second contention attempted to establish the improvement of well-being experienced by welfare recipients, and the tangible economic benefits of such a policy.
O'Donnell's negation started with a series of responses on the affirmative case designed to show that Rothschild had failed to impact his arguments against the claims of economic freedom, and had not proven an obligation for the government to be the agent of economic redistribution. O'Donnell ended the arguments with an impassioned plea for the judges to "sign the ballot right now," reasoning that the affirmative had failed to meet his "prima facie burden" for the round. The negative case was based upon the value of justice and the criterion of negative rights. The single negative contention argued that because a political order could never agree upon conceptions of the good, any government that looked beyond the protection of negative rights would simply devolve into coercion and persecution. O'Donnell's refutation of the affirmative case centered around proving that welfare failed as a policy action and that the presence of unequal resources in society did not constitute an injustice.
Rothschild grouped the entire negative contention on the grounds that it argued the general libertarian position. He attacked it with five responses that focused on the need to give the poor an opportunity to use their liberty, and the need to eliminate arbitrary inequalities. His final response was distinct from the rest. He claimed that O'Donnell's value of a minimalist state could still not be achieved since positive duties would still exist in the absence of welfare. Rothschild's five responses put him in a time crunch when turning to the affirmative case. He responded to O'Donnell's plea that he had not me the "prima facie burden" of the affirmative by arguing that he met the burden of showing a governmental obligation to the poor. In dealing with the negative responses to his case, Rothschild re-iterated that a negation did not establish a minimalist state, that the "capitalist race" posed a threat to the well-being of the poor, and that the libertarian outlook was out-dated, applicable only to "agrarian farmers". O'Donnell's brief analysis against his 2nd contention was almost completely ignored by Rothschild.
In the negative rebuttal, O'Donnell pushed that the standard to judge the round by was the protection of negative rights. In re-building his case, he argued that any positive duties by the government were purely coercive, to the level of constituting "persecution" and that while he didn't guarantee a minimalist state, he at least worked towards one. O'Donnell turned to the affirmative case by repeating that Rothschild had failed to meet his "prima facie burden" of the affirmative because he had not shown a reason to prioritize welfare. On the contentions, he pushed the inevitability of inequalities amongst people in society and his coercion point. In closing, O'Donnell re-stated that the standard to judge the round by was "negative rights", repeated that Rothschild had not met his burden, and reminded the crowd of his coercion point that he had been driving home throughout the entire round.
Rothschild dedicated the 2AR to pushing the obligation to help the poor for they were "dependent members of this [social] family". He repeated the last 1AR response that a negation did not reach O'Donnell's goal of a minimalist state. He ended the speech by turning to his point on arbitrariness, which served as a key part of his constructive and his third 1AR response to the negative case. He pushed that the coercion involved in an affirmation was justified if it could help compensate the poor for the bad hand they had been dealt in life.
In sum, this was a good round that had some confusion. The issue of the affirmative having to fulfill a "prima facie burden" in the round never contributed much to the discussion, and added more to confusion than clarity in the round. Had this not become an issue, more attention could have been paid by both debaters on several interesting points that were left underdeveloped, such as Rothschild's second contention and the discussion over whether there was a duty on the part of society to eliminate the arbitrary barrier of poverty. Student reaction immediately after the round was mixed. However, many were persuaded by two moves taken by O'Donnell: his establishment of "protecting negative rights" as the standard to judge the debate by, and his point that affirming unnecessarily coerces individuals by violating those rights, particularly that of property. The camp vote was 29-10 in favor of the negative."
Sincerely,
J.W. Patterson
Director of Debate
University of Kentucky
============================== CX-L Mailing List ============================= To unsubscribe: send the text UNSUBSCRIBE CX-L to listproc@debate.net with NO SUBJECT. For other help, send mail to jordyn@debate.net. Fear the Kvaal!
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:04:16 -0400
From: J.W. Patterson <jwpatt00@pop.uky.edu>
Reply-To: ld-l@world.std.com
To: cx-l@debate.net, ld-l@world.std.com
Subject: Kentucky LD Fellows Debate #3
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
Lexington, KY, July 5, 1999
GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT
SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS:
Kentucky Institute LD Fellows staged the third demonstration debate of the
1999 institute on Tuesday afternoon, June 29. Burt Chao (Plano, TX) Affirmed against Michael Rosenburg (Miami Palmetto, FL) on the Negative. Following the debate, institute instructors ALEX GOMEZ, University of Michigan, filed the following report:
"On June 29th, two titans of LD met on the battlefields at the University of Kentucky Debate Institute. Burt (the irresistible force) Chao of Plano Senior challenged Michael (the immovable object) Rosenberg of Miami Palmetto. In this iron cage match, only one man would be left standing. Will it be "the government provision of welfare to the poor" or "individual economic freedom?" Read on true believers.
Burt began his attack with a flurry of left hooks and a sustained justification for a welfare state. The affirmative case proposed that justice demands that a state; 1] promote the individual's capacity to use his or her rights, and 2] compensate innocent victims of a vicious capitalist machine. In support of the first point, Burt argued that welfare claims are essential to guarantee access to political rights. Furthermore, without a welfare state innocent victims are caught in a "cycle of poverty."
Michael countered with a Lockean suplex. Michael derived the right to property from the individual's claim to his or her body. This claim metamorphosed into a natural right to property. Michael then stated that the burden of the affirmative is to show that individual economic freedoms are licentious application of property. This burden will require that an affirmative show that the harms created by individual economic freedom are intended and direct results of individual economics freedom.
Michael also countered the affirmative case with specific claims against each criterion. The largest complaint was that the asserted obligations were never linked to government legitimacy. Michael contended that the obligations discussed in the affirmative case were never grounded in theory like his own Lockean bombshell. Michael also argued against the second contention (as a whole) that the harms suggested by the affirmative failed to meet the negative's criteria for limiting natural rights.
Burt countered by hitting Michael over the head with a folding chair ("that is definitely illegal foreign material."). Additionally, Burt argued that the vague arguments against the criteria discounted the numerous sources that he provided in his case. The rampant grouping dropped numerous specific warrants. In a fit or irony, Burt countered by grouping the entire negative case and making four responses regarding the non-absolute nature of property claims.
Rebuttals devolved into a mass of accusations. Burt accused Michael of "dropping" the specific arguments within his case. Michael accused Burt of dropping the specific Lockean analysis. The referee had to separate these valiant competitors. One member of the audience wondered whether such inhuman viciousness is necessary in LD (the consensus was "yes."). The fate of the contestants was left to their peers.
The decision was 24 - 15 for the negative (though the decision among the hallowed fellows was a different matter). Our noble warriors walk into the sunset vowing to settle this another day^Ê once and for all^Ê"
Sincerely,
J.W. Patterson
Kentucky Institute Director
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:56:08 -0400
From: J.W. Patterson <jwpatt00@pop.uky.edu>
Reply-To: ld-l@world.std.com
To: cx-l@debate.net, ld-l@world.std.com
Subject: Kentucky LD Fellows Debate #4
THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
Lexington, KY, July 6, 1999
GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT
SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS:
Kentucky Institute LD Fellows staged the fourth demonstration debate of the
1999 institute on Tuesday afternoon, June 29. Seamus Donovan (Edmond North, OK) Affirmed against Noah Grabowitz (Hendrick Hudson, NY) on the Negative. Following the debate, institute instructors ALEX GOMEZ, University of Michigan, filed the following report:
"RESOLVED: In America, government welfare provisions for the poor ought to take priority over individual economic freedom.
AFFIRMATIVE: Seamus Donovan NEGATIVE: Noah Grabowitz
The Kentucky Lincoln Douglas Division was fortunate enough to witness a solid, clear and close debate between Institute Fellows, Seamus Donovan and Noah Grabowitz. The affirmative began running Justice as his premise with two criteria that summarized the values each of his contentions impacted to. The first contention argued that those on top of the capitalist system knowingly and willingly displace workers into an unemployed, poor class in the interest of maximizing profits. Since the government encourages this business behavior, it is obligated to compensate the poor by insuring their basic needs through welfare. The second contention argued that successful individuals in the capitalist system have no just claim to their rewards since their success is almost entirely due to arbitrary factors. He ended by pointing out how making provisions for the needs of some outweighs the luxuries of the elite in society.
Grabowitz's negative case argued under the similar value of governmental legitimacy with the specific criterion of protecting negative rights. His sole contention argued that individuals do not have positive rights, of which he asserted include welfare, that providing welfare was equivalent to forced labor, and that individual choice over what to with personal finances is a moral action of which government ought to have no place. After passing up discussion of the value premise, he attacked Donovan's first contention arguing that no one could be blamed for the poverty of some since their situation was the result of the free-floating, natural capitalist system. He contended Donovan was "giving too much character to the system", and that the poor were not totally victimized since they could still make their skills marketable in the system. He responded to the first part of the second contention by arguing that its conclusion would not entitle anyone to anything and that the negative right to economic freedom outweighed the positive right to welfare. In response to Donovan's last point, he contended it only focused on a conflict between the very poor and very rich, and didn't consider the harms taking money would have to the regular, working middle class.
The 1AR was equally efficient with responses. Donovan's four responses centered on the point that basic needs were a prerequisite to the utilization of the negative rights Grabowitz held so valuable and the ability to make personal choices. He concluded that since all individuals deserved this chance and that welfare provided them with basic needs, it was best to affirm. Ignoring the value and criteria, Donovan went strait to re-establishing his arguments, contending that the government is responsible for those victimized by the capitalist process since it encourages businesses to increase production and greater automation. He kept his second contention's "arbitrariness" argument going strong by committing to the position that individuals are only entitled to their basic needs, justifying redistribution for welfare. He ended the 1AR by arguing that even if did harm the hard-working middle class, no benefit outweighed the basic provisions for life that came with welfare.
Grabowitz started the 1NR by extending his criterion of negative rights, contending that the side allowing individuals to pursue their own conception of the good ought to win out. On his case, he argued that welfare didn't meet the standards of a legitimate right (since it is positive), that Donovan's "arbitrariness" point justified stealing at any time, and that the affirmative "tells people what moral choice to make" since giving to the poor was being coerced. On the affirmative case, Grabowitz countered the 1AR points on the first contention by arguing that their was nothing keeping the poor from getting out of poverty and that no specific individual was to blame for the economic hardships of some. He stated that "education was the key" to getting a job. On the second contention he contended Donovan never provided a line for when the government would stop taking our money and that he was ignoring the harm to the middle class.
The 2AR opened hoping that by pointing out two contradictions, he could shift the debate to his side. He first pointed out that because Grabowitz was labeling governmental control over personal choices as bad, he was in fact, advocating a conception of what is good. Donovan claimed that this contradicted the negative position that we ought not advance a single conception of the good. Second, he said that by the negative offering that public education was available for people, he was contradicting his own minimalist stance that the government ought to play no other role than protector of negative rights. While Donovan did not explicitly show the implications that the second alleged contradiction had on the round, he did make the first the centerpiece of the speech. He argued since introducing a conception of the good was now allowed, the affirmative conception was better since it allowed the poor to utilize their rights and further participate in society.
Students seemed to really enjoy the debate. Nearly each comment was prefaced with some compliment to each debater. Several were especially surprised by Donovan's move to explain the two contradictions. However, many thought that each contradiction was brought up entirely too late in the debate to do anything for Donovan. Grabowitz's three voting issues were convincing enough to about a third of the camp: the vote was 29-11 for the negative."
Sincerely,
J.W. Patterson
Kentucky Institute Director
|
