Our elite Mastership Sourcebooks for NCFCA and Stoa will release soon! Check them out here!

Someone just asked for this Kritik, which was buried in the India Ethos sourcebook. It was about AIDS, but could be about any number of mature topics that may arise this year. Hopefully you never need to use something like this!

C. Kritik
A. Link: Case discusses very mature topic. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that denotes discussion about sexuality, birth control, orientation, methods of procreation, abortion, and morality.

Internal Link 1: Internet. Researching AIDS requires searching for very mature terms on the internet, which usually means you need a good filter and parental supervision

Internal Link 2: 5 Year Age Range. Debate rounds are targeted to the 13-18 year old audience, but this topic is more at the 18 year old level and not really at the 13-15 year old level

Internal Link 3: Timekeepers. Timers in rounds are often of younger ages and this case exposes them to discussion about sex and sexuality transmitted diseases that are sensitive for young ears

B. Analysis: AIDS in a debate round geared for 12-18 year olds should be cast aside as a topic that is too mature for young ears, including most debaters and all younger siblings who time, and many types of audiences. As a public forum activity, debate’s purpose is undermined when certain groups are restricted from participating.

C. Voters

1) Audience Exclusion – The AIDS discussion excludes many types of audience: children, timers, parents who are uncomfortable, people who do not know about such issues and are made uncomfortable by the discussion in the round

2) Debater Exclusion – Parents may object to their child debating in NCFCA at all if such topics are allowed to be the subject matter of debate. Please do not let such content advance.

3) Fairness Exclusion via Research – Parents who filter their internet or do not allow their children to research sexual diseases, or even students who feel like they should not be doing so, are unfairly treated in such debate rounds. They do not have the ability to engage in effective policy discussion because they do not know the details of AIDS.

D. Alternative:

Don’t discuss morally charged issues like sexual diseases, even when “on topic”. While it might be difficult to understand subsidies, trade policy, or intelligence, discussion of sensitive information that not only excludes on possible lack of understanding but on moral objection is objectionable material in a debate round. We’re not complaining just because we don’t know about the aff topic—we’re complaining because we shouldn’t yet know enough about the aff topic to debate it.

%d bloggers like this: