Topic Selection - First, Do No Harm?

[topspeaker70]

I don't know how anyone else feels - indeed, part of the purpose of this post is to find out what others think - but, as a veteran (nice euphemism, old man) Coach and Judge, I am thoroughly OD'ed, PO'ed, and just plain sick of the topic of health care reform.

Georgetown started running health care reform (single-payer NHI) on the "revenue-sharing topic" in 1969-70, and has been running it periodically ever since.

Teddy Kennedy never shuts up about it.

It's been a high school policy debate topic. It's been an NDT/CEDA topic.

1993-94 was nothing but yada-yada-yada about Bill and Hillary's health care plan.

"Sicko." ("An Inconvenient Truth" for hypochondriacs and the AARP.) 'Nuf said.

And today, you can't go to any legitimate news source without be inundated - wall-to-wall, 24/7 - in ineffable twaddle about "the debate on health care reform."

Could we PLEASE debate something else? If people really want to debate health care reform, can't they go to a town meeting and/or Washington D.C. and get it on with a Member of Congress?

Let's debate important stuff... like where Michael should be buried... or, if health is your thing, about the Swine Flu, or whether or not Christian Scientists are right about illness.

Send Obama and Palin to a Death Panel!

Next candidate: Climate change...

[kpreston]

Clearly, being tired of a topic means it can't possibly be relevant to millions of people and worthy of ample civic discussion.

Dismissing what is easily and obviously the most significant political issue of 2009 as overplayed and (therefore) unimportant isn't a good excuse not to talk about it. And as someone who is on the front lines of that debate, all day, every day (I work for AARP), I know that there is a serious need for informed discussion to supplement the hateful fearmongering of talk radio and Fox News talking heads.

But hey, I'm tired of talking about North Korea and Iran. So let's have a moratorium on prolif topics, while we're at it. It's been an NDT/CEDA topic and we've been talking about the taepo dong since, what, 98? It'd be way more educational to debate about Michael Jackson's babymama drama. By all means.

[GiantsFan]

Ah, kids, I think we're taking a ranting post JUST A BIT too seriously.

The MJ reference was kinda funny...

[ultravires]

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

[topspeaker70]

Clearly, being tired of a topic means it can't possibly be relevant to millions of people and worthy of ample civic discussion.

Dismissing what is easily and obviously the most significant political issue of 2009 as overplayed and (therefore) unimportant isn't a good excuse not to talk about it. And as someone who is on the front lines of that debate, all day, every day (I work for AARP), I know that there is a serious need for informed discussion to supplement the hateful fearmongering of talk radio and Fox News talking heads.

But hey, I'm tired of talking about North Korea and Iran. So let's have a moratorium on prolif topics, while we're at it. It's been an NDT/CEDA topic and we've been talking about the taepo dong since, what, 98? It'd be way more educational to debate about Michael Jackson's babymama drama. By all means.

Pardon me, but if you've been listening to Parli Debate - as I have - for more than five years now, you know that most (not all) of the time, what one hears regarding these momentous "relevant" topics is a lot of sloganeering, platitudes, cliches, and simplistic drivel, often liberally seasoned with a plethora of inaccurate - and often anti-educational - "factual" assertions, smothered in pompous, second-hand, banal and incomprehensible debate jargon.

Let's get real: Is anyone going to seriously defend the proposition that college Parli Debaters - alone or in combination - are going to discover, during their 20 MINUTES of extensive preparation - something that hasn't been pondered and argued - ad nauseam - since Truman was in the White House? (This would apply to both NHI and North Korea.)

What do you expect in 20 minutes of prep? The Magna Carta? What do Parli Debaters do with the leftover 15 minutes? Call out for pizza?

Gimme break...

Does anyone on this Board truly contend that Parli Debaters are actually discovering - sua sponte, every weekend - "new answers" and/or "solutions" which are "relevant" to energy independence and/or climate change and/or nuclear proliferation, etc.?

If so, Parli Debaters shouldn't be in college; they should be in power.

If not, an impartial observer might conclude (as have certain law firms have, according to legal message boards) that "Parli Debaters" tend to be an insular cabal of spoiled, effete, self-important, narcissitic, intellectually-onanistic dilettantes. (Not my observation: theirs.)

But, hey: No worries.

I posted an opinion about topic selection (and why should that be relevant to Parli Debate, right?). Topic selection is "your" - whoever you are - EXCLUSIVE choice (actually the choice of overworked, underpaid, overtaxed, and underappreciated coaches), so:

Debate declaring Independence from Great Britain and/or the Dred Scott decision and/or Eating from the Tree of Knowledge if you wish. It certainly doesn't affect my life... or anyone else's.

The audience is irrelevant to debate, correct, Parli Debate Community?

Picard (the old guy with no hair) out. For keeps.

[SoCalian]

I think the point is that a little more variance in debate topics wouldn't be a bad thing. We do seem to do the same things over and over again.

It'd be way more educational to debate about Michael Jackson's babymama drama. By all means.I remember at the Garces High School tournament they used to have tabloid extemp. It was always a fun change of pace to see and do. I realize you are being facetious, but I fully wouldn't mind more pop culture topics.

[Yotie]

Let's get real: Is anyone going to seriously defend the proposition that college Parli Debaters - alone or in combination - are going to discover, during their 20 MINUTES of extensive preparation - something that hasn't been pondered and argued - ad nauseam - since Truman was in the White House? (This would apply to both NHI and North Korea.)


Being young and apparently unlearned, I learn much about the world at every tournament it seems. But then again, maybe debate isn't so much about the education of the debaters themselves. Yeah, what a joke that would be.
I play the banjo, and am on this banjo forum. In one area of the forum, the same questions are asked time and again about the same problems, and the same old veterans keep answering with a smile on their face. It gets old, believe me, but that's why I don't go around that part of the forum anymore. Discussion isn't all about you.
Besides, as the saying goes, give the monkeys enough time, and we might just write Shakespeare.

[Chuck]

I don't know how anyone else feels - indeed, part of the purpose of this post is to find out what others think - but, as a veteran (nice euphemism, old man) Coach and Judge, I am thoroughly OD'ed, PO'ed, and just plain sick of the topic of health care reform.

Georgetown started running health care reform (single-payer NHI) on the "revenue-sharing topic" in 1969-70, and has been running it periodically ever since.

Teddy Kennedy never shuts up about it.

It's been a high school policy debate topic. It's been an NDT/CEDA topic.

1993-94 was nothing but yada-yada-yada about Bill and Hillary's health care plan.

"Sicko." ("An Inconvenient Truth" for hypochondriacs and the AARP.) 'Nuf said.

And today, you can't go to any legitimate news source without be inundated - wall-to-wall, 24/7 - in ineffable twaddle about "the debate on health care reform."

Could we PLEASE debate something else? If people really want to debate health care reform, can't they go to a town meeting and/or Washington D.C. and get it on with a Member of Congress?

Let's debate important stuff... like where Michael should be buried... or, if health is your thing, about the Swine Flu, or whether or not Christian Scientists are right about illness.

Send Obama and Palin to a Death Panel!

Next candidate: Climate change...


I can completely understand this sentiment. I think the problem with it is that topspeaker conflates his regional experience with national debate. lets face it, the tournaments in texas and louisana face serious quality issues when it comes to preparing people for the national circuit.

[KCalderwood]

It only takes those who care about real health care reform in this country to get demoralized to have it killed. When that happens, then we will have lost, like we did beginning all the way back in 1948. I am tired of people who go to town halls and scream their heads of, interrupt others, and spout of lies (on both sides) about the change that needs to happen in the health care system. Aren't we all? The problems you have isolated are centered on those too stubborn to listen to criticism and change their ideas on the issue. President Obama used to be in favor of single payer health insurance (like I am), but realized that this was not a PRAGMATIC political option, so he has moderated his position. Now, I think it is time for those who think the government is going to "socialize" medicine to open up their eyes, moderate their thoughts, and realize that with a public option you still get to keep your private health insurance. Even if one day I get my wish and we have single payer, the likelihood that you would not be able to pay your own private supplemental health insurance is not there.

You are absolutely correct, that this debate has been going on forever, and it will be tough to find new solutions to old problems. A couple of comments here, though:

First, if you think that we have debates based on only 20 minutes of preparation time then you have never been to a tournament with pre-released topic areas. That might be the case. This certainly is not a problem, but to lump all of "parli debate" into this category is kind of silly. Christopher did our health care work for npte this year, and he spent the same amount of time as the rest of us that combined for over 1000 hours of combined work during our work week. And we even discovered a few new ideas about health care. So, yes, lots of things have been covered. But some arguments that are not made in the national discussion are still out there, and were found by members of my team during work week. (no he did not invent the idea, but he discovered an argument i had not heard of)

Second, these are old problems and we don't need new solutions. We need to win the PR campaign. We need to make it clear that other industrialized nations have successful health care systems. Probably should also make it clear that we spend more money on health care than any other country per capita, yet we still do not have anywhere near the top in health care. Refocusing the debate on the PROBLEM of health care I think will go a long way.

Third, not talking about health reform and dismissing the debate is exactly what those that have good health insurance and want to maintain the status quo want you to do. National health insurance was killed in the Truman administration because of a massive amount of money funneled into the debate from the American Medical Association. Another factor, that is not well known, is that southern whites were opposed to this idea because they were afraid that national mandates would actually lead to the integration of blacks into southern hospitals. So much for this discussion not having anything to do with race, where the root of this issue has a lot to do with racists in the South. Even Nixon wanted to pass universal health insurance, but he obviously did not have the popular support in his administration to do so. We all know now what happened in 1994 is very similar to what is happening now- a small number of people are making a lot of noise about how we are rushing the issue. How are we rushing an issue when you make the claim that we have discovered all of our options? When every other industrialized country has done this? Where we would already have a public option if it was not for racists following world war ii? I don't know about anyone else, but I think 60 years is a pretty long time to discover the options.

What did President Bush do for 8 years? Reagan for 8? Bush I? Anyone? Anything? All they did was try and further privatize a system. The reason why this is so important is because the Democrats will not government for ever. The conservative movement in the United States is well funded and control a lot of policy discussions because of the sheer number of think tanks they have. I just don't think it's safe to risk "taking more time". Delay just means that the new Republican administration will delay it by ignoring the problem.

Mike, I don't know your views on health care. And I am not trying to focus really any of this post on you (except for the comments on the importance of the discussion).

As for now, I am back to watching Glenn Beck, trying to figure out why he thinks we are going to start offing people through the myth of the rationing of care. I guess it's ok, though, to ration care for 46 million, obviously poor and more likely to be minorities, to protect the rights of more well off Americans.

[Mike_Cal'06]

If not, an impartial observer might conclude (as have certain law firms have, according to legal message boards) that "Parli Debaters" tend to be an insular cabal of spoiled, effete, self-important, narcissitic, intellectually-onanistic dilettantes. (Not my observation: theirs.)AUTH: Citation Needed. Claim that law firms know that parli debate exists is unsupported.

[Mr. Notlob]

Let's get real: Is anyone going to seriously defend the proposition that college Parli Debaters - alone or in combination - are going to discover, during their 20 MINUTES of extensive preparation - something that hasn't been pondered and argued - ad nauseam - since Truman was in the White House? (This would apply to both NHI and North Korea.)

What do you expect in 20 minutes of prep? The Magna Carta? What do Parli Debaters do with the leftover 15 minutes? Call out for pizza?

Gimme break...

Does anyone on this Board truly contend that Parli Debaters are actually discovering - sua sponte, every weekend - "new answers" and/or "solutions" which are "relevant" to energy independence and/or climate change and/or nuclear proliferation, etc.?


If you are serious then I have no idea how you have been involved in debate for so long and have such a warped understanding of the activity.

A couple things wrong with what you said:

1. That is why we have topic areas so we have weeks to prepare research and possible plans on the topic, not 20 minutes.

2. Every competent debater will do general research on repeating topics. Every debater worth their salt will have plenty of files on and experience with health care reform.

3. Debaters don't invent new policies in the 20 minutes of prep time (well, at least not good ones). One of the primary points of research is to find policies people are proposing in the real world and to prepare arguments for and against them. Your characterization of the way parli functions is a straw person argument and conflates good debate practices with lazy debate.

4. You completely ignore the debate itself. Sure, no one is going to find solutions during the 20 minutes of prep, that is why we have a debate about the topic afterwards.

5. The purpose of debate is not to find the truth. An inability to discover solutions to the health care crisis or other problems it not a fault of debate. Whether you think the point of debate is to educate students (and possible audience members) or a competition or be won and more of a competitor driven activity, debating health care helps those topics. The state of recent town hall meetings shows that people badly need to be educated on the subject. Health care reform is also a damn good idea which makes it a good position to defend in a competitive event.

6. Your position is nihilistic and anti-educational. If we give up on finding solutions for serious problems because more intelligent people have spent longer thinking about them then we just acquiesce on every single topic of importance and lose the most significant chance we had of finding solutions. Your position is also anti-educational because if we cant (or shouldn't) debate about important issues people have been discussing for years but haven't solved then that excludes almost all of the most important issues we ought to be concerned with. No more Israel/Palestine topics, that is clearly intractable. No more Iran debate, we have been trying to find a solution for decades and failed so why even talk about it. No entitlement reform. No tort reform. Cant debate Russia, sexual discrimination, or campaign finance reform. If you had your way we would only be debating issues of absolutely no importance and with no literature base.

7. Far too much of the current discussion on health care reform is filled with misinformation, lies, fear and hate mongering, and bald-faced partisan politics. Debate is one of the very few places left where people can have an informed, reasoned, and insightful discussion of the problems of health care and potential solutions. Debate is often at its most useful and beneficial when it is discussing hot button political issues.

It is legitimate to be bored by health care debates. It is legitimate to be irritated by bad and lazy debaters. It is not legitimate to conflate your personal dislike of health care topics, criticisms which apply to all bad debaters and not health care specifically, with parli itself and all health care debates. None of your arguments amount to anything more than "I find health care debates boring and bad debaters are bad." That is not a reason against debating health care and denying others who find such debates educational or interesting that benefit.