September 16, 2005

Query for Debate Folks

by PG

The Phoenix Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society is advertising its next event, a $25-a-head dinner and debate between State Senator Dean Martin, the sponsor of recent voucher legislation and John Wright III, President of the Arizona Education Association. It is described as "Resolved: Should Arizona Include School Vouchers In Its Mix of Educational Options?"

Never having been a debater, I cannot state this with certainty, but it was my impression that when someone said "Resolved," that is not meant to be followed by a question, as a question is indicative of irresolution.

(Incidentally, the obsolete meanings for debate are all things like "To fight or quarrel; to fight or argue for or over; conflict; strife." Middle English debaten, from Old French debatre: de-, de- + battre, to beat; see batter.)

September 16, 2005 04:11 PM | TrackBack
Comments

You are correct. A proper debatable resolution is a statement, with one side attempting to justify or affirm the statement, and the other side attempting to negate the statement. Properly worded, this would read "Resolved: Arizona should include school vouchers in its mix of educational options."

But the big question: is debating at the Federalist Society better or worse than debating on The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes?

Posted by: Ryan at September 16, 2005 10:53 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Symposia
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter
Research


Powered by
Movable Type 3.21