Recent Changes

Welcome​Welcome to Albright
My goal as your teacher this year is to help you become the best speaker/debater that you can be! This class was designed to prepare you for the tougher choices in life and you will be equipped to make the best choices with the best possible analysis of the situation because of this course. If you are going to compete, “You Might As Well Win!”
Need Help?

Welcome to Albright Middle School Speech and Debate Wiki!
Well Win!”
Need Help?
Contact Mr. Michael Limas

Public Forum
TSCA 2009
Decorabilia

The following was originally published October 12, 2009 at http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2009/10/value-criterion-pairs-for-immunization.html
LD casewriters studying the November/December compulsory immunization resolution might consider the following value and criterion pairs. (Have your own ideas? Suggest them in the comments!)
See also: my guide to some useful philosophers, plus a way to consider the criterion in LD debate.
A work in progress.
V: Societal Welfare
C: Act or Rule Utilitarianism
As I've mentioned elsewhere, many affirmative cases will use either explicit or implicit utilitarian reasoning. It's easy to figure out why: compulsory immunization, from the state's perspective, violates autonomy in order to keep the herd immune, and reduce suffering and death. Of course, some may argue that Mill's nonpaternalistic utilitarian scheme, via the harm principle, supports the negative, but that's what makes it fun.
Note: a potentially fruitful line of argument might be an analogy based on the infamous Trolley Problem. Also, see here for a deeper look at utilitarianism as a moral criterion.
V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
Because the resolution concerns compulsory immunization, making the agent of action the State, social contract theory comes into play. Change your value to "societal welfare," and you can make arguments based on contractarian reasoning as well. (My initial thought is that Hobbes or Rousseau are your best bets here.)
V: Freedom
C: Reducing Biopower
Foucault, anyone?
V: Autonomy
C: Deliberation
Without autonomy, humans are slaves, robots, or worse. Autonomy is the core of human freedom, rights, and responsibilities. Compulsion is a direct affront to autonomy; deliberation (especially deliberative democracy) uses dialogue and education to create change. (As you can probably see, this is a Negative approach.) Potential philosophers: Arendt or Habermas.
V: Autonomy or Humanity
C: Kant's Categorical Imperative
The Neg might argue that compelling someone to take a (potentially risky) vaccine in order to protect the herd is a classic case of using someone as a mere means to an end. If so, Kant says no.
V: Life
C: Utilitarianism
A fairly straightforward setup.
V: Justice
C: Rawls' "Original Position" or "Veil of Ignorance"
Compulsion is always a matter of justice. But with competing rights claims--and competing visions of the right--how can societies agree on what justice means? John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" offers an interesting form of a moral criterion, especially given Rawls' biography. Does compulsory immunization in the service of public health meet this standard?
V:
C:
V:
C:
{https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6865007-7414423003525347550?l=decorabilia.blogspot.com} [[rss url="http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/search/label/LD" link="true" number="10"]]

Parliamentary Debate
Public Forum
TSCA 2009

The following are great resoucres from the Texas Speech Communication Association convention:
{2acKRITIKS.doc}
{93822584.pdf}
{93822666.pdf}
{93822674.pdf}
{93822696.pdf}
{93822704.pdf}
{94459448.pdf}
{Learningtodebate.pdf}
{NAUDLArgumentSummaries08.08.01.pdf}
{NAUDLArticleAnthology08.08.01.doc}
{NAUDLCF08.07.29.pdf}
{NAUDLResearchGuide08.08.18.pdf}
{Parent_handbook_-_Judging_Requirements.doc}
{Research_Sources_on_the_Web.doc}