The Verbal Army
Jonathan and I just returned from our first debate tournament of the year at Sprague. It went well; we are on our way to continuing the Rocker-Kadish legacy. This is especially true when considering that Wilson historically does absolutely abysmally at Sprague. We pretty much annihilate everyone in the second half of the year, but at Sprague I don't remember anyone ever doing better than 2-2. True, we didn't win the tournament, but we came in 2nd by going 3-1. We just lost to the winning team by the skin of our teeth in a debate that we technically should have won. Now I know I'm sounding arrogant, but you weren't there so you can't judge it. Ok that was arrogant, but really, that's all debate is about. That's the only reason those people from Westview carry around so many damn file-bins of information.
But let me elaborate. Now of course you're groaning, but you willingly decided to read this. We were pretty much completely screwed on the resolutions. Here were the resolutions, the sides we debated, and the outcome:
1. FEMA should be separated from the Department of Homeland Security. (opposition, win)
2. Homeland security should take precendence over individual rights. (proposition, loss)
3. The US should limit entry visas for people from certain states or regions. (opposition, win)
4. Public transit systems should provide the same passenger/luggage screening as airports. (proposition, win)
So overall, we got the short end of the stick on topics, especially on the last one which we only won through a combination of my brilliant definitions and Jon's incisive rebuttal. But let's talk about this loss that we had. "Homeland security should take precendence over individual rights."? Isn't that the status quo? It sort of is, unless you want to take away more of people's rights, in which case you're setting yourself up for debate suicide: the moral low-ground and no reasonable justification. So we argued terribly for the status quo, but our opponents NEVER brough this up and were equally vague (somehow they were the ones who won the tournament). It's illegal for the proposition to argue the status quo in debate, but only if the opposition mentions it. So technically, the judge could not vote against us for arguing the status quo because our opponents didn't catch it. But that's pretty much why we lost, according to the judge's ballot. Another interesting feature of that debate was when the opposition compared Jews with terrorists and we started laughing (Jon is sort of Jewish, after all). At this point she muttered, "Fuck you" at us and continued on in a style of speech vaguely reminscent of beatnick poetry: "But who is to say who? Or how? These people? Who? Terrorists? Jews? Everyone? When? But WHY?" It was pretty spectacular, except that we lost. You try arguing that we should take rights away from people to preserve homeland security without arguing the status quo.
So all and all it was fun, although a little weird that Jonathan and I were the only two people from Wilson there, other than some freshmen who showed up to watch. Fifteen hours with Jonathan Kadish is something you don't experience every day... unless of course you're me, in which case you do that a lot.
Doesn't plane=weapon win?
Good job. I'm curious what the other resolutions were in the one you lost. Seems like you should have immediately crossed the resolution you saw, unless the rest were equally biased.
Freakin' hilarious. I just discovered youre blog. I searched the web for something like "Wilson chess" trying to see where I could find it (Obviously I have my nerd insecurities as well if I have to search for ways to inflate my own ego). I've always thought that the idea of having a blog is kind of wierd, too exposing. But I guess you can choose what you wish to write. I felt kind of guilty going through all your posts though I couldn't help it. They were so enthralling and witty. Really cool.
Anyway, my brother and I have the had this same debate going on for a while, except more like should the right to security take precedence over other, individual rights like freedom of speech and assembly etc (thats a big one in France these days). I don't think you were bound to argue the status quo. I always argued for the individual rights (as it was of course the seemingly moral high ground). But it is also the constitutional duty of the US to protect its people/states from all foreign and domestic threats. Why not argue that, without security, individual rights are compromised anyway. I couldn't get around this when my brother brought it up because I kept on thinking about Israel. Israel is effectively a military state. But Israelis aren't complaining because if it wasn't in a continuing state of martial law, they would get blown away, to put it rather bluntly (actually that angle is a little status quo isnt it:P). But lets not forget either that the Bill of Rights, with its share of political upheaval, was added to a rather stronghanded constitution. Of course I'm not a debater and I'm probably wrong(<---insecurity). Those are just my thoughts.
Wow, it seems like my blog is quickly becoming the after-school hangout of the entire advanced physics class: Colin, Ted, Kiva, now you... etc. Your argument is basically the one that we used: the only way to maximize the net social freedom is to strip it from a certain few people who threaten to take freedoms away from larger groups of people. Limiting rights in some cases is thus the only way to maximize the social "freedom function," if you will (I actually said something along those lines, although I sadly didn't mention derivatives). But anyway, this is the status quo because we already do this quite often (e.g. Patriot Act, probable cause, etc.). The issue is whether we should do it more. Arguing that route sacrifices a lot of moral ground.
Don't feel guilty reading my posts though. And they aren't very witty either.