Monday, August 27, 2012
PF 2012 Proposed October Resolutions
EDIT Sept 1
The NFL has selected the moral obligation resolution. I voted for the other one as i felt it would give us two possible points of view which offered different potential solutions. Fine, the coaches have spoken. We could always change the name from Public Forum to Philosophy Forum. Now, what exactly is a developed country? Topic analysis starts here.
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Resolved: Adaptation should be prioritized above mitigation in response to climate change.
I predict PF Debaters will be talking about climate change in October.
The moral obligation debate is an incredibly LD-like resolution. The second resolution creates a pretty clear division of ground for Pro and Con. Pro will favor adaptation and Con will favor mitigation - both daunting choices. I wonder...what will the judges say if Con tries to mitigate but Pro proves they can not. Does Con automatically lose? How much "mitigation" is enough? I mean, what if mankind stops all CO2 emissions and Milankovitch cycles continue to affect warming? What if warming is simply slowed down 0.001%, is it enough?
On the other hand, the first resolution is not so clear cut. The Con ground seems clear enough if the position is simply contrary and Con says, we have NO moral obligation to mitigate but is naysaying debate? It reminds me of a Monty Python bit about arguing. What if Con says, no, we have a moral obligation to adapt?
Time to vote on the resolution, coaches.