PFDebate

January 2008 Public Forum Debate Topic Announced

by PFDebate LLC on November 30, 2007

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.

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Sam November 30, 2007 at 10:56 pm

LD much?

Sean December 1, 2007 at 2:10 am

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.

BOB the Sponge with Square Pants December 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm

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.

Zen December 2, 2007 at 9:37 am

Why must we debate another LD topic? WHY?

Cherry December 2, 2007 at 11:39 am

This topic was an L.D topic 2 years ago

PFDebate LLC December 2, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Yes, the LD topic at the 2004 NFL National tournament was:
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

Carly December 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Might as well just switch to LD for Jan/Feb. and keep on debating the December topic. :P

BOB the Sponge with Square Pants December 2, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Does anyone think the word “democracy” will lead to interesting debates?

Spencer December 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm

please keep LD topics in LD and PF topics separate

lifesagardendigit December 3, 2007 at 12:20 am

this is so LD. this is going to bring up some interesting arguments. good thing our team has bomb LDers to help

lifesagardendigit December 3, 2007 at 6:46 pm

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

STEVE the Sponge with Round Pants December 3, 2007 at 6:48 pm

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…

marie-Noelle December 3, 2007 at 8:16 pm

This should be an interesting debate. The examples and supporting evidence should be fun :)

BOB the Sponge with Square Pants December 3, 2007 at 8:40 pm

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?

Nate Bernitz December 3, 2007 at 9:04 pm

What is the neg argument here

Hachihyakunijuni December 3, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Hmm. Where would you guys start looking for evidence?

STEVE the Sponge with Round Pants December 4, 2007 at 6:47 am

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.

Flo December 4, 2007 at 11:06 am

This is not LD at all- and I’m being 100% serious.

STEVE the Sponge with Round Pants December 4, 2007 at 3:45 pm

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.

Hachihyakunijuni December 4, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Yeah Americas a federal constitutional republic. Where else to look…?

Tyler December 5, 2007 at 8:37 am

does anyone have a list of the pros and cons that would be good to make a good case?

BOB the Sponge with Square Pants December 5, 2007 at 9:36 pm

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?

lifesagardendigit December 6, 2007 at 12:25 am

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

lifesagardendigit December 6, 2007 at 12:25 am

it sucks having to debate topicality but sometimes you have to do it to win

Amy December 17, 2007 at 6:40 pm

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.

monty December 18, 2007 at 11:24 am

this topic is not LD at all jeezo man you guys.

Flo-----chart December 18, 2007 at 11:33 am

monty i said that earlier, finally someone agrees with me, jeezo petes

hardy martyyy December 18, 2007 at 11:40 am

this topic makes me love my lifeeeeeeeeeee. floooo..montyyyyyyy. yeahhhhhhh. RARRRRRRR

BOB the Sponge with Square Pants December 18, 2007 at 9:28 pm

I love this topic..especially when I’m on neg…YAY!

No more master-debater jokes.... December 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm

This debate will come down to modern versus 1776 philosophy, enjoy.

ben January 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

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..”

unknown January 2, 2008 at 1:03 am

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)?

cary January 2, 2008 at 11:19 pm

very ldish this is so much better the last months topic

Debating Jesus January 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm

it doesn’t say “true” democracy in the res, and a federal constitutional republic falls under that umbrella of a democracy.

unknown January 4, 2008 at 1:02 am

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.

cappedinliberty January 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm

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?

sammi January 23, 2008 at 4:31 pm

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

Copyright © 2009 PFDebate LLC