Card of the Week

  UIL: Affirmative

 UIL's debate resolution offers students an opportunity to investigate power relationships and economic elitism in American politics.  Most debaters, and even political theorists, would shy away from claiming elitist oligarchies compromised of corporations and politicians are good things.  It is for this very reason that extreme arguments can often be a strong strategy - at least when they are developed and well-reasoned.  An argument affirmative debater's could make centers around propping up the economic elite in America, claiming that these elite individuals are key to peace and stability. 

To start, the affirmative team would present a value or order, peace, or some other general value about society.  Affirmative's would want to stay away from values like equality and justice, putting more emphasis on the role order and peace plays in preserving those.  Defining "major" as one of the Fortune 500 companies will also serve to set the stage for the following arguments.  Essentially, you can argue that bailouts to major corporations preserve the economic elite in our nation.  The elites are key to preserving order in our nations and do vast amounts of good.  You will claim that true democracy would be bad and concentrating power in less than the whole population is better.

Your first step would be to build the foundation of the argumentation.  Some sort of statistic showing that Fortune 500 companies make up a vast amount of the American GDP would be perfect.  Follow that with information about the amount of bailout money going to those companies. When the affirmative has established that this group of companies is the elite, you can go on to proving their necessity to social order.  An important argument to note is that it is not the CEO's that make up the elite group, but the interests of the company as a whole.

Next demonstrate how bailout money serves to prop up the elite in society.  This argument is very easy to make.  Bailout money was given to major corporations in an effort to preserve their roles in society.  Indeed, our own government rhetoric held that these corporations were necessary to our stability.  Without some of the major banks or captains of industry, our economy would collapse.  When our economy collapses, war, death, destruction, and rampant starvation would occur. 

This portion of the argument will be the most difficult to prove and come under the most fire from negatives.  Societies built on true democratic principles will always fail.  Even our nation is founded on Roman principles of Republicanism.  That Roman system lasted for hundreds of years until Caesar killed the rightfully appointed leader and appointed himself Emperor.  Even our American Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton) were rich, white, land-owners.  Granted, a few founders did not fit the mold of rich elite, but most did.  History is full of examples as to why an autocratic or monarchy is a recipe for instability and where concentrated oligarchies preserve power and order best.  However, a system that invests power in only the most capable (in this case, measured by economic productivity), will remain stable.  If any one corporation becomes unstable or out of control, the elites in government and their competitors can check them back. 

Obviously, morality and general understandings of "justice" are not present in your argumentation.  Using analysis from Niccolo Machiavelli will serve your purpose here.  All that matters is the practical ramifications of the policy actions.  Machiavelli held many of the same arguments.  He wrote about the best ways to preserve power and control a population through fear.  Any arguments the negative may make about the morality of your actions can be answered with critical argumentation or subsuming - pointing to the second main point.

NFL: Affirmative

Vigilantism is a topic consuming the news.  American militia groups patrol the border with Mexico, where even more vigilante groups are warring against the drug lords.  Very little time is devoted to understanding the role ethics, morality, and values play in vigilantism.  Ironically, graphic novels and Hollywood spend more time discussing the implications of vigilante actions than our news media.  Affirmatives face a challenge in demonstrating that many laws are so important that individuals external to the system should enforce them.  This paper will explain how to limit the negative's ability to use examples of horrible laws that should never be enforced. 

As the affirmative, the first burden is to define the resolution.  Definitions of "vigilante" do not offer much flexibility, but both Wikipedia and the Mariner Museum define a vigilante as someone that appeals to a higher law/power.  Vigilantes, generally, operate outside the jurisdiction of the government in order to stop actual or perceived criminal acts, which the government is either unable or unwilling to penalize.  Affirmatives may struggle in defining laws (which is discussed later).  Definitions of "law" are anything but dynamic and the affirmative is left with a lot of ground to defend.  However, through some simple philosophical arguments, it may be possible to narrow the focus. 

Many political theorists argue that laws which violate natural rights are not legitimate laws and citizens are not bound to abide by them.  Therefore, "law" can be narrowed to "good laws" in an attempt eliminate the negative's ground to use examples of "bad laws."  If the government is assumed to exist for the purpose of protecting human or natural rights, any law that exists outside of the framework (i.e. violations of natural/human rights) is not a just law.  One could posit that unjust laws are not actually laws.  In that, the government has resigned some of their authority by making the unjust law, stripping all power and mandate from that law. 

Yet, beyond spiking out of arguments from the negative in your definition and explanation of laws, the affirmative must discuss vigilantism.  Intrinsic within the concept of vigilantism is the Hobbesian dialogue about the nature of government.  In Hobbes' world, any law made by the government is legitimate because man's nature is basically evil (and his life without the government "nasty, brutish, and short").  Essentially, government is given an ultimate mandate to enact whatever policies are necessary.  In such a political framework, vigilantism would never be justified.  Affirmatives should be prepared to respond to such an argument.  However, the strength of the affirmative lays in an appeal to rights that exist outside of civil rights.  Natural and human rights do not function in our world because governments give them to citizens, but because they are intrinsic - the UN Declaration on Human Rights holds the same ideals.  Therefore, when a government begins to violate the natural or human rights of an individual/group, the citizenry is all but obligated to act.  It is for this reason that international actors justify invasions that violate sovereignty - when the natural rights of individuals are violated, the government resigns a certain measure of legitimacy.  The U.S. Constitution and its framers understood the need for vigilantism when they penned the Second Amendment.  A right to keep and bear arms is not a natural or human right, but our founders understood that the necessity for vigilantism would one day arise.  Without weapons, the citizens of the United States could never hope to defend themselves from injustice.  Our framers intended to instill within our constitution the tacit understanding that vigilantism may one day be necessary and vital to our nation's survival. 

UIL: Negative

The UIL resolution focuses on corporate bailouts and their relative justification.  As a result, debaters are forced to dissect the corporate world and make arguments supporting and attacking the very nature of corporations.  One possible argument is founded in Hobbesian theories of government.  Corporations often circumvent the government, alter government regulations to benefit themselves (through lobbyists), and posses vast amounts of wealth and power.  As a result, a negative could argue that corporations undermine the government's (leviathan) role to control society and they must be allowed to collapse. 

Hobbes viewed human governments as a great leviathan (dragon) that, while often dangerous, is necessary for peace and order.  Without the government, Hobbes argued that life would be "poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  In his mind, the effects of anarchy not only justified the existence of government, but also granted the government almost unending power.  The leviathan of government often reared itself as an absolute monarchy in Hobbes world, but the form of government is not crucial.  Foundational to Hobbes' concept is the absolute power of the government over society. 

Hobbes' view did not leave room for rights and liberties, which can be problematic.  Government must, on some plane, retain a measure of legitimacy and power.  Hobbes may be extreme in his theories, but his basic premise is sound: without government, society suffers.  As the negative team, this puts you in a place to demonstrate how corporations undermine the government's authority and legitimacy.  At the point that corporations undermine government's power, society becomes more at risk.  Multitudes of values can be connected to government collapse.

Applications of corporate harm to Americans are numerous.  Corporations generally do more harm to individuals than small businesses (who are not requesting bailouts - demonstrating their economic strength and uniqueness).  American history, recent and past, is full of corporations that abused and violated individual rights.  Wal-Mart has been sued for millions on many occasions for violating labor laws.    Oil barons like David Rockefeller artificially lowered his prices at gas stations until he eliminated all the competition - only to raise them as soon as he won the market!  Enron's accountants violated the laws regarding accounting, leaving millions without power in California and the American west.  Seeing these groups collapse, it could be argued, would largely benefit society and the world.  It would open up the markets to small business, which can better cater to their local economies.

All of this is not to claim that corporations are inherently evil.  Indeed, there are many corporations that do marvelous things around the world.  But for every corporation doing something right, there is someone doing wrong.  The focus of the argument should be on the benefits of small businesses and how corporations undermine not only liberties, but also circumvent government regulations.  Without corporations, America would be a much better place.  Or so the argument goes.

NFL-LD: Negative

Negative teams in NFL-LD can make good use of definitions.  Their over-arching strategy should be simple.  First, discredit the concept of laws by showing how many laws are bad.  Second, show horrible examples of vigilante justice.  A value of order and rule of law might function best.  Another important strategy will be to keep the resolution inside the United States, which has a much more solid legal system than many nations.  Both of these strategies should not be run simultaneously.  On one hand, the negative is demonstrating how vigilantes are good, but not always when they support the government.  On the other, you are saying vigilantes are, as a whole, bad.  Pick whichever approach will work best in the round.

First, attempt to discredit the affirmative's arguments by demonstrating how laws can be unjust.  Laws can never intrinsically protect positive values.  Not all laws are desirable and many laws infringe on rights and liberties.  For example, Jim Crow laws, prohibition, and the Alien and Sedition Act.  As a result, often vigilantes must fight against the law (not simply enforce it with the government in absentia).  Ergo, failing to enforce the law becomes desirable and actually enforcing it undesirable.  Negatives should prepare themselves with many examples of vigilantes fighting against the system to provoke or incite positive changes (especially those that may align with the affirmative value) in their nation.  If those changes uphold one value, they are bound to violate another. 

Finally, the negative should be planning to show how the nature of a vigilante is not always just.  Other the course of history, many vigilantes have acted out of a sense of perceived wrong.  Groups like the Klu Klux Klan acted violently toward minority groups, not because the minorities were committing crimes, but because the KKK perceived a violation.  Simply because the government is failing to act, does not give citizens the legitimate job of stopping all the crime.  This is where values of order and rule of law come into play.  If everyone takes the law into their own hands - enforcing is as they see fit - there can never be order.  Mexico City is currently under such a mob rule because the drug lords have become increasingly more violent.  Thus, while the KKK and Mexico City mobs may be described as vigilante groups, their operation certainly does not uphold any value the affirmative would present. 

Both of the strategies will work to disprove the resolution.  If laws are not just, how would a vigilante enforcing them make them just?  Indeed, only if that law remains unenforced does a justice occur.  Even if laws are just, a citizen enforcing them breeds chaos and conflict.  Law enforcement agencies are well-trained and versed in the law.  Systems are in place to check back any abuses or injustices that those agencies may perpetrate.  The same does not exist for vigilantes.  As a result, vigilantes are not the answer.  With these two arguments in hand, the negative will be very strong.

UIL LD: Negative

Resolved: Government bailouts of major corporations are just

Numerous arguments are available to negative debaters on this topic.  One particularly strong strategy may be to build a case around free market principles.  Federal government bailouts of major corporations clearly violate free market principles and undermine the economy in the process. 

A free market is a system with little government intervention and regulation.  The idea is that in an attempt to maximize profits, businesses will naturally adjust to consumer demand, providing consumers with the best possible products at the lowest possible prices.  This phenomenon is what economist Adam Smith labeled the "invisible hand" guiding the economy.  The "invisible hand" creates the most efficient allocation of societal resources.  In a free market, companies that are successful at satisfying consumer demand will profit.  Companies that don't will fail and go out of business.  Economist Joseph Schumpter termed this "creative destruction."

According to Schumpter, capitalism is a system of profits and losses.  These profits and losses provide needed information to employees, entrepreneurs and investors to know where their money and talent are most valuable.  Ideally, failure will spur companies to develop more innovative ways of satisfying consumer demand.  Free market economists believe this is the entrepreneurial force that sustains long-term economic growth.

"Out of destruction, a new spirit of creativity arises."

--Mikhail Bakunin

"Economic failure is to the economy what physical pain is to the body.  No one enjoys pain, but without it the body would lack the information needed to maintain its health."

--Dwight Lee and Richard McKenzie

How does this tie into the bailout?  Government bailouts of major corporations prevent creative destruction and the "invisible hand" of the economy from working in the most efficient way.  Instead of allowing outdated automobile companies to go bankrupt and be forced to restructure their company, bailouts only keep pouring money into businesses that are unsuccessful at satisfying consumer demand.  This confuses the market signals of profit and loss.  Because of this, bailouts will likely delay the process of recovery and extend the financial crisis.  A more responsible and just solution is to repeal government regulation, privatize functions that should be private and restore a free market.