The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

01-27-2008, 9:45 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Student Congress at a Debate Tournament Hey, I just got back from an all day trip to Moses Lake High School, in the center of the state of Washington, and thought I’d write about some of my experiences there. I got called to judge debates and individual events at a debate tournament there. I judged at these events quite a bit a few years ago but not recently. When I was called upon to substitute teach for Mr. Smith’s class, the debate coach at University High School and the person for whom I did some classroom observations and worked for as a debate judge previously, I left word that I would be available to judge again if he needed me. Well, he called on me this weekend for the tournament at Moses Lake, and I accepted. I got up at 3:30 in the morning on Saturday and got to the University High School parking lot at 5:00 to get on the school bus which took us; me and a few other judges and two coaches and about twenty teenagers from two different schools, U-High and my old school, Central Valley; to our destination about three hours away. When we got there, the first event was student congress. This is where about twenty kids sit in a classroom and act as senators at a parliamentary hearing. They elect a leader who uses parliamentary procedures to lead the meeting where, first, senators propose several issues, which have been prepared and summarized on a sheet of paper. One senator makes his or her recommendations, and then others add topics they wish to discuss. When everything is moved and seconded and voted on, the list is produced on the board, and the leader takes each topic in turn and asks if anyone has a speech in affirmation of the issue. If someone does, he or she gets up to make a case and answer questions from the floor. Then, someone else may have a speech in opposition to the issue and gets called on to make his or her case and answer questions from the floor. When everybody has had his or her say, the group votes; and the bill passes or fails. A judge sits in the background and gives points to each speaker, but I was not judging this event. I was just observing. They talked about affirmative action, whether or not PETA should be considered a terrorist organization, whether or not prisoners should be tortured in Guantanamo Bay, and whether or not marijuana should be legalized. There were pros and cons. It was interesting. These kids were learning how to make their cases and seeing how policy is made. I love this kind of thing. I wish we could get some of these discussions and debates going on this forum. There is a lot out there to talk about. With affirmative action, the old quota system was being challenged and points were being made about reverse discrimination. Someone proposed a more general criterion which included achievement and cultural diversity rather than just test scores and race. Someone made the old argument that affirmative action was a way of atoning for past injustices etc. With PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the point was made that these people sometimes do some radical things. They show people pictures of slaughtered animals which would make those who are used to gutting fish and foul sick. They throw red paint on people who wear fur and shout murderer etc. They sometime sabotage equipment in lumber yards which could lead to injury. They get in the way of trucks and equipment and get themselves hurt. They drive nails into trees which catch the saws used to cut the trees, and this is dangerous for the person holding the saw. These actions are not legal. Should these people be considered terrorists? Some people think they are just good people concerned about ethical treatment of animals, but they also threaten jobs and progress. There is plenty to be said on both sides. The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are supposed to be terrorists, but some of them are innocent. Some of them are American citizens who are getting their rights violated. People may think we are protecting our country from more 9/11 type attacks and need this kind of option, even the water boarding which simulates drowning, a form of torture which wouldn’t be legal in the United States. We put people on Guantanamo Bay to get around Constitutional restrictions, but this doesn’t make it right. The Declaration of Independence says “all men”, which means all humans, regardless of whether or not they are citizens of the United States, have natural rights. The Constitution tries to secure those rights by securing rights to counsel, rights to a trial, and rights not to be tortured, yet these prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are having their rights violated. Is this right? Then, what is wrong with legalizing marijuana? Nobody dies of an overdose of marijuana, and it is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. There are some medical uses for marijuana, and it is not necessarily addicting or a gateway drug for harder drugs. You can ask old guys like me who have used it in the 60s and early 70s but not anymore. Other things were discussed, and I judged a few individual events, Oral Interpretation and Expository. I also judged a Lincoln-Douglas Debate, my favorite, and I’d like to talk about that in a separate post. What do you all think about the issues I touched on above? Does anyone here have definite opinions about any of them? Could we have a little congressional debate about any of them right here? Bis bald, Nick    Report

01-30-2008, 12:26 AM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament PETA - I view the idea that animals have rights as silly. Humans have a responsibility to treat life with respect, but animals do not have rights. When PETA members commit crimes, they should be proesecuted. When they do something, like place their boats in front of whalers, or drive nails into trees, they are committing acts of terror without regard for the human lives they endanger, and should be treated as such - the degree to which one disregards life should weigh heavily on the punishment one suffers for the crime. There are many things that humans do to animals that I do not approve of - whaling, baby seal harvesting, dog fighting, etc. - but those are human activities that are essentially outdated or inhumane, and PETA should be working to educate people on those points, not setting harmful traps for the humans who do them Guantanamo - 'some of them are innocent'? I suspect we know very little about the inmates at Club Gitmo, and if they were (to be) found innocent, they are there for reasons we are not privy to. This is a war against an enemy without a homeland that we can destroy; they are a network, designed to infiltrate the societies they seek to destroy. Those that are American citizens most likely gave up their citizenship, and only claim it now in hopes of getting free. I think the military must be allowed to conduct a war without interference from the other branches of government. I frankly don't give a damn what happens to those who have participated in violent action against the U.S. My preference would be to kill them first, but interogation is necessary I suppose, and if that means waterboarding, so be it. Yes, it is right. Marijuana - there's nothing wrong with legalizing it. I did use it, I did go on to harder drugs, and for all I know it did harm me, along with those other drugs. My own fault if it did. I stopped using by my freshman year of high school. I think anyone that uses drugs, including alcohol, is stupid. But to each his own. Do a crime, do the time... Do a crime under the influence, do double time. That's my solution. Let them do drugs if they want, if they die, their choice. Less waste of space, more jobs, less CO2 emissions, its all good. As for affirmative action, or any other legislation that interferes with business doing business, repeal them all. They are not needed, probably never truly were, and certainly aren't now. Your turn, baldy.    Report

01-30-2008, 3:18 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament We have no serious disagreement with regard to PETA and marijuana. We do have some disagreement with Gitmo. You seem ready to write off all prisoners there as guilty and deserving of severe punishment, yet you also agree that we don't know in all cases why they are there. According to the guards, there are people there who are innocent, who are victims of discrimination, because they are Arab or Muslim, or because they were tortured and claimed to be terrorists to remain alive. They don't get lawyers and trials and protections that other Americans get. There is no way for them to prove their innocence. Would you say anything your captives wanted you to say to escape death by torture? Some people wouldn't, but it doesn't mean those who do are guilty, does it? bis bald, Nick    Report

01-30-2008, 11:06 PM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament "According to the guards"? What, a few guards who were there for a tour got to know some of the inmates a little and began to feel sorry for them, and I'm suppose to go into a panic about their 'rights'? Not to do a Bill Clinton-style analysis of the meaning of the word 'is', but if I'm going to listen to a few guards, then I'm first going to do some background investigation on those same guards, to find out where their minds were at before the war, before they got posted at Gitmo, and how long they were there. Maybe a little Stockholm Syndrome began to set in on the guards, becoming sympathetic to the inmates. No, I'm not bothered by Gitmo, even after it's all over, there will be people running around the Muslim nations claiming to have been held captive at Gitmo, probably more than the entire island of Cuba could hold. We are at war, a war that started decades ago, and that they pulled us into by attacking us, repeatedly. We should have been stronger in supporting our allies against terror in the past, and should have done more after the hostage crisis, maybe we never would have had a 9/11. You can always second guess, but it doesn't accomplish much.    Report

01-31-2008, 1:40 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament Well, marantaz, in our form of government, the one we wish to protect from terrorists, a prisoner isn't suppose to be required to prove innocence. An accuser is suppose to prove guilt. And, we don't use torture because people say things which are not true just to keep from being tortured. It is very ineffective at getting to the truth. If they came after you and threw you in Gitmo, I'm sure you'd have a different view. You'd want your Constitutional rights to have a lawyer, have a trial, and not be tortured. Instead, you challenging opinions of people who are there, looking for any excuse not to believe them. It is like looking for any excuse not to believe the oil rings may be faulty on the space shuttle. It's more like faith than reasoned thinking. It's dangerous. bis bald, Nick    Report

02-01-2008, 12:42 PM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament Nick, as of now, I'm not of the opinion that what happens at Gitmo is going to lead to an infringement on my individual freedoms.  When that time comes, it will not be from our military looking for terrorist, it will more likely be our military being used against us to enforce some ridiculous government re-education program or behavioral restriction program.  It will be insidious societal reformation that takes us into Communism.  Brute force is easily recognized and often resisted, as long as people still believe death preferrable to slavery.  When my government comes for me, they will die, or I will.  BTW, I hate lawyers. I'd like to go back to the use of "all men" are equal and have rights.  We don't disagree, it is the very foundation of our liberty, and should never be abridged by our government, but I wonder how far you propose we take that?  Should we apply it to everyone, at all times, regardless of their conduct, regardless of their individual involvement, or their nations involvement, in violent actions against our nation?  What about applying our laws, our concepts of freedom (which modern, thinking people and nations have recognized as true and correct) to people in other countries?  Would you excuse U.S. intervention in the internal politics of another nation because of evidence that some of the people there are having their rights violated?  Would it be appropriate to send our military into Darfur because of what is going on there?  Surely, if we are to protect the rights of a few individuals who our military have captured in the course of military operations, shouldn't we attempt to protect the thousand, if not millions, of people in the world who are being killed by petty dictators, tribal wars, etc.?  Should we be the international police, preserving the rights of the oppressed all over the world?  Is that the role a few words in our Constitution has come to define for our nation? What about a less militaristic approach?  If we have thousands of Canadians coming to the U.S. each year, as we do now, because they can't get decent medical care, despite their countries claims that their socialized medicine is working, should we impose sanctions on Canada for failing to care for its citizens?  What if those thousands grow to be millions?  Surely they would drain our resources, and prevent our own citizens from getting care, violating their rights in the process.  And those that could not come here would be left to suffer at the hands of a government that fails to correct its mistakes.  Or, should we impose sanctions on the South American countries that are currently doing nothing but encourage their citizens to invade our nation, take jobs, and send their income back to their homelands?  If these people have those same rights, and we are to preserve them for everyone whenever and wherever they are, it certainly would not be fair to prevent them from coming here, so securing the border would not be the right thing to do.  But it's not right or fair to our citizens to continue to allow the invasion, so perhaps we should impose sanctions, and if the lives of the people in those countries do not improve, then use military force to protect them from their own corrupt governments.  Would you prefer to put such actions under the contol of the United Nations?  Would you have us subject our military to the whims of the UN?  Should they be sent in only if the UN mandates it?  And who's concepts of human rights would we be governed by then?  Certainly, we don't want to have our military used to impose Sharia law upon the people of some Islamic country that oppresses women, but under the UN, how could we prevent it without violating the mandates?  And what would we do when the time comes and the UN, under the control of countries that might not have as much respect of freedom and liberty as we do, decides that our society is unacceptable and something has to be done about us?    All men are equal, and all have the same rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, without having to suffer the intervention of government.  People came to this country, as they still do, to be free, they came here because they weren't free where they were.  We did not impose our freedoms on them when they lived in their homelands.  They seek the promise, the opportunity, our Constitution guarantees all who reside here.  We attempt to protect the basic human rights of those we come in contact with, even our enemies, but I see no reason to extend to them the same guarantees as our citizens. There will come a time when someone's freedom, someone's rights, will be violated to preserve the rights of all.  That is when force becomes the only option.  It may not be pretty, it may not be nice, and none of us are particularly proud of it, but the violators of freedom require it to be done; defeating them may be impossible without kneeling to their level, if only for a moment. And I too am enjoying the exchanges.  I'm not a debater, I'm not able to recite 'talking points', but I've enjoyed reading the thoughts expressed here.    Report

02-02-2008, 12:17 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament Nick, as of now, I'm not of the opinion that what happens at Gitmo is going to lead to an infringement on my individual freedoms. Yes, but aren’t you concerned that some people’s rights are being violated? You could be a privileged person living in a despotic country. As such, you may not be concerned with what happens to the unprivileged, until they come for you. If you really believe what our Declaration of Independence says, that all men have rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; then you shouldn’t turn a blind eye to injustice just because it doesn’t touch you yet. I'd like to go back to the use of "all men" are equal and have rights. We don't disagree, it is the very foundation of our liberty, and should never be abridged by our government, but I wonder how far you propose we take that? Should we apply it to everyone, at all times, regardless of their conduct, regardless of their individual involvement, or their nations involvement, in violent actions against our nation? I’m not sure you understand this concept. If all men have equal rights, it doesn’t mean that some men can violate the rights of others. Men do not have the right to pursue happiness by violating the rights of others. If that were the case, then only the strongest and best protected would have rights, not all men. It would not be a situation where all men have equal rights. The only way a government can protect rights for all its citizens is to protect them from those who would violate their rights. This is why putting a predator, someone who would violate rights, in prison is not violating his or her rights. There is no expectation of freedom for those who would deny others freedom. But people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they recognize that others have that same right. The problem is, not all people at Gitmo are predators, and it is not their burden to prove otherwise. There should be a burden on the part of the government to prove people are guilty before putting them in prison. It is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Just because someone is Arab or Muslim doesn’t necessarily mean they are terrorists. The procedures for determining whether or not people are terrorists should be the same as it is for determining whether or not any person is a criminal; they should have representation and a fair trial. This is not being given to the prisoners in Gitmo. Yes, some prisoners in Gitmo, perhaps even most of them, are terrorists and would be found guilty in a court of law. However, they are not getting their day in court. They are all being denied the right to defend themselves, and some of them may be innocent. We are not allowing them the right to prove it. This is not consistent with American principles of equal rights. Bis bald, Nick    Report

02-04-2008, 11:58 AM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament As you failed to answer my question as to how far you would extend the concept of "all men are created equal" and would project America's freedoms onto others around the world, am I to assume you have no answer?  "Yes, some prisoners in Gitmo, perhaps even most of them, are terrorists and would be found guilty in a court of law. However, they are not getting their day in court."  They're not entitled to a day in court, as a person accused of a crime in the U.S. would be; they are enemy combatants, (allegedly) engaged in a campaign of terror against the U.S. and other nations, and are subject to military justice.  Or are you only willing to grant our freedoms and laws to those that you feel are being violated, but only if it is done by a president, an administration, or a military action that you disagree with?  Again I ask you, would you engage in economic extortion or the use of the military to remove from power another government that was engaged in genocide within its own borders, or to stop tribal conflicts, etc., etc., if it were to protect the rights and freedoms of the people who were imperiled by those acts?  That seems a rather simple question, and your answer also would seem obvious, if you are going to insist the prisoners at Gitmo be provided legal counsel and a day in court.  "Men do have the right to pursue happiness by violating the rights of others."  I'm going to assume that's a typo, you meant 'don't', otherwise you contradicted your previous sentence.  As you merely restated the contention that the prisoners at Gitmo are entitled to the same protections that the average citizen of the U.S. is, I'll just refer you back to my comments above.  However, what I don't think you understand is the difference between a government, primarily the military, being required to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors and the government using its power against its own citizens.  Our government has both the responsibility to ensure our protections are not violated, and the responsibility to protect us from attack by others.  The military exercises its command of military operations, and in times of war, military justice over enemy combatants.  That is why our laws and freedoms do not extend to enemies captured by the military, and also why the military should not be utilized to enforce laws within the U.S., except by declaration of martial law, which is what will happen if another attack upon the U.S. is successful.    Report

02-04-2008, 1:18 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament As you failed to answer my question as to how far you would extend the concept of "all men are created equal" and would project America's freedoms onto others around the world, am I to assume you have no answer?  I thought I did answer your question. Perhaps you did not understand. I admit I did make a typo, but I fixed it and will reiterate that "all men have natural rights, not just those living in the U.S. That means the U.S. ought not violate the rights of those in other countries, just as they ough not violate rights of those living in the U.S. The Declaration of Independence does not say only those in the U.S have natural rights. It says "all men." They're not entitled to a day in court, as a person accused of a crime in the U.S. would be; they are enemy combatants, (allegedly) engaged in a campaign of terror against the U.S. and other nations, and are subject to military justice.   Again,these paper rights, like those in the bill of rights, are designed to protect our natural rights, and "all men" have natural rights. So, if a person accused of a crime in the U.S. is innocent until proven guilty, so should any man accused of violating another's rights. As to whether or not we should intervene in the affairs of other nations who violate individual rights, I think we should if we can without great sacrifice to ourselves. We cannot be responsible for all the world's problems, and we should use negotiations and non-military incentives to make our wishes known, depending on the problems. Never-the-less, we should stand for individual rights and not be hypocrites. bis bald, Nick     Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Student Congress at a Debate Tournament

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU