The NFL has announced the January 2008 topic a day early:
Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.
The LD folks will be debating a topic that seems very similar to the December topic.
Public Forum Debate News & Information
-
Crossfire Briefs
Crossfire Briefs are published 10 times per year for the September through April NFL topics, the NCFL Grand Nationals topic, and the NFL Nationals topic.
For more information about Crossfire Briefs, visit the PFDebate Shop
Crossfire Briefs
2008-09 Subscription
10 Issues
$140
Crossfire Briefs
September 2008
Military Draft
$20
Available Now!
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
LD much?
I’m really starting to like the whole LD spin on all the PF topics. I’ve always liked LD topics, but never the structure and Policy-likeness of LD. This works out great for me.
Ok, does anyone else find that this will cause very intersting debates due to the fact they used the word democracy, leaving out a lot of different arguments? It looks fun to me.
Why must we debate another LD topic? WHY?
This topic was an L.D topic 2 years ago
Yes, the LD topic at the 2004 NFL National tournament was:
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.
Might as well just switch to LD for Jan/Feb. and keep on debating the December topic. :P
Does anyone think the word “democracy” will lead to interesting debates?
please keep LD topics in LD and PF topics separate
this is so LD. this is going to bring up some interesting arguments. good thing our team has bomb LDers to help
can you argue that in a true democracy you wouldnt have to have a fight for justice so therefore you wouldnt need any civil disobedience
What is everyone thinking so far for basic points on each side?
I personally think this will be annoying because of the necessary definitions for each debate. I really hope none of my rounds come down to debates over definitions…
This should be an interesting debate. The examples and supporting evidence should be fun :)
Hey Steve thanks for stealing my name…lol
So wait, the fact that there is no “true” 100% democracy, wouldn’t that twist and mess things up in the round. Couldn’t that be used, or are we all more acting in figurative terms or is this directly connected back to the United States?
What is the neg argument here
Hmm. Where would you guys start looking for evidence?
hah yeah i jacked your name.
by the way, examples from america aren’t as good as you can get, since america is a technically a republic. “I pledge allegience to the flag of the united states of america and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…”
google: “america is a republic” if you want more explanation why this is different.
This is not LD at all- and I’m being 100% serious.
This WAS an LD topic 2 years ago. And of course it is a LD topic anyway. Pretty much anything with “justified” in it can/should be LD.
Yeah Americas a federal constitutional republic. Where else to look…?
does anyone have a list of the pros and cons that would be good to make a good case?
Thanks Steve…lol. U r a debater..stealing everyone else’s ideas and such.
Ya I think I should walk in with a Value and a criterian just to make everyone mad…well never mind, it might just make me mad when I loose the round…lol.
DOes anyone think Ancient Greece would be a good example to use as a democracy?
hey bob the sponge with square pants. saying that there is no true demcracy will totally work for the neg its just a loophole in the resolution that you need to find in order to make a solid argument for the neg bacause if you dont the aff will hit you with numerous examples of the U.S. and you can say that because this isnt 100% demcracy it doesnt apply
it sucks having to debate topicality but sometimes you have to do it to win
Oh wow, the neg case seems as if it will be based entirely on “If THIS happens, this MIGHT happen so THEREFORE, it is WRONG” Sigh…. And that’s logical fallacy right there. This topic is so narrow…comparable with the fairness doctrine.
this topic is not LD at all jeezo man you guys.
monty i said that earlier, finally someone agrees with me, jeezo petes
this topic makes me love my lifeeeeeeeeeee. floooo..montyyyyyyy. yeahhhhhhh. RARRRRRRR
I love this topic..especially when I’m on neg…YAY!
This debate will come down to modern versus 1776 philosophy, enjoy.
arguing topicality will never work.
you guys should probably stick to legitimate arguments..
to say [on NEG] that a true democracy doesn’t exist is silly..
most arguments are hypothetical..
on the NEG side you have to argue what is actual [like real examples]
and on the PRO side it’s easier to say “in a TRUE democracy..”
Did Martin Luther King actually engage in civil disobedience, meaning, did he actually break the law….or did he simply make speeches and convince society that segregation was wrong (without breaking the law)?
very ldish this is so much better the last months topic
it doesn’t say “true” democracy in the res, and a federal constitutional republic falls under that umbrella of a democracy.
In response to ben…..
atcually, i don’t think it will be easier to define democracy as a ‘true democracy’ in ur pro argument because a lot of examples of beneficial civil disobedience movements of the past were not under true democracies. For instance, the civil rights movement is a good example of a beneficial civil disobedience movement, but it was not under a true democracy because the african americans did not have equal rights.
The idea of disregarding a republic because it’s not a true democracy is very silly, virtually no true democracy has ever existed (Athens had such a limited citizenship that they were definitely less representational of the people than the US) and so the resolution implies a government that functions on democratic ideals - like a republic.
Pro is pretty straightforward what with the seventies and all, Con is the tricky part. All i can think of is that while civil disobedience is awesome in a tyrannical situation, more responsible alternatives (i.e. the electoral process) exist in a democracy that serve as a more accessible and appropriate weapon.
Or maybe, if you wanted to be weird, you could say that civil disobedience, especially in the US, has become so overused that it’s usually never even covered by the media anymore, and so it has lost most of it’s functionality.
What do you think?
ok buddies…im really tired of all this LD stuff goin on in my PFD! i want pf back…i didnt join pfd to debate topics like this…lets boycott this! haha well atleast we are gettin away from ld and into Russia…anybody else think we should just bomb Russia and take care of any threat? haha
Leave a Comment