Program

Social and Cultural Implications

What is the link between religion and conflict?
Resolved: the Christian Tradition enjoins believers to be Pacifists

Travis Ausland, Michael Hall, Chris Lundberg, John Ross, Liberty University. Jason Jarvis, Arizona State University.

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 10

One of the overlooked undercurrents present in post-Semptember 11th discussions of both state-centered and non-state violence is the link between religion and conflict. Given the the recent reemergence of religious practice by individuals and religious rhetoric by politicians, the time is ripe for a reevaluation religion’s role in relation to militarism and violence.

Are domestic civil rights and liberties being curtailed?
Resolved: That the current US anti-terrorism effort is substantially curtailing domestic civil rights and liberties.

Roundtable participants: Adrianne Carr, Allison Carr, Mike Davis, Ryan Galloway, Gareth Griffin, Tom Keane, Patricia Kelley, Ilon Lauer, Michael Lee, Kate McGrath, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Ken Rufo, Juan Sierra, and Hayes Watson, University of Georgia. MODERATOR: Dr. Edward Panetta of the University of Georgia

LOCATION: Greene Hall, Room 313

The roundtable will discuss racial profiling, the use of torture in evidence gathering, pretrial detention of material witnesses, airport security measures, the history of and current possibilities of internment, as well as the historical legacy of subordinating the civil rights and liberties of ethnic minorities in times of international crisis. The free-flowing exchange will last for one hour and fifteen minutes and will be followed up by a fifteen minute question and answer period with the audience.

What is the role of Music (Hip-Hop) in engaging terrorism?

The Fusion of Debate and Hip-hop: Music, Argument, Social Change, Terrorism

David Wiltz & Nader Haddad , Cal State Long Beach engage Corey Knox & Sandra Webster, University of Louisville, Moderator: Judd Renkin, DePaul University

LOCATION : Greene Hall, Room 308
In light of a world supposedly turned on its head by the events of September 11, terrorism has taken a new place within political discussions. Hip-hop has long addressed and discussed the concept of terrorism and the politics of hip hop need to be heard on this issue. Thus during this phase of the discussion debaters will, play, and/or perform music based on a theme of terror and terrorism. These performances will then be followed by an application and interpretation of the argument made by the performance.

After the performance a moderator will invite interested audience members to either perform, make a point ask a question, with the focus on terrorism. The panel will also engage the audience in a moderated discussion focusing on two questions: First, how can hip hop effect debate? Second, can debate effect hip hop?

How should feminists feel/think about the US response to the September 11 tragedy?
How should feminists feel/think about the US response to the September 11 tragedy?

Beth Schueler, Whitman College, Emily Cordo, Whitman College, Jessica Clarke, University of California – Berkeley, Nikki Hudak, Emory University, Mary Salazar, San Francisco State University, Kevin Rinker, San Francisco State University, Sarah Partlow, Idaho State University, Serena Turley, Arizona State University. Moderator: Karla Leeper, Baylor University.

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 03

This discussion will focus on: (1) To what extent is the rhetoric deployed in support of the war effort “masculine”? (2) Does feminism justify overthrow of the Taliban or is this cultural imperialism? (3) Is the appropriate response to September 11 “logical,” “emotional,” or some permutation? (4) In what ways has the media response to September 11 been gendered?

Is it better for individuals to petition the state as activists rather than to petition other individuals?
Resolved: it is better for individuals to petition the state as activists in the wake of the Sept. 11th events, rather than to petition other individuals.

AFFIRMATIVE: Justin Green, Dallas Jesuit School & Jarrod Atchinson, Wake Forest University. NEGATIVE: Pam Bowman, University of Texas-Austin, Katie Hatziavramidis, Creekview HS, TX. Moderator: Joseph Bellon, Georgia State University.

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 117

Congress, the media, and academics on a day-to-day basis inundate the public with coverage of our current efforts to discuss September 11th. Roundtable discussions on such programs as “Cross-Fire” ask experts what the United States should do. Public opinion polls clearly show that the American public holds definite views on the subject matter (few respond to poll questions with the option “undecided”). Yet, few answer the question “How should individuals in our democratic society initiate change or express solidarity with current proposals?” This debate will focus on the question of how to initiate change. The debaters will provide and debate both practical methods and the theoretical reasons for them. As a result, those from across the political spectrum may find approaches to increase their participation in our democratic society.

Does the government’s definition of terrorism damage social movements?
Resolved: The United State Federal Government’s domestic war on terrorism has a damaging effect on strategies used by social movements to create change.

AFFIRMATIVE: Jason Sykes and John Hines, Julian Gagnon, and Scotty Gottbreht, North Texas State University, NEGATIVE: – Sarah Stone and Heidi Ramer, California State University – Long Beach. Todd Woodbury, Lawyer, Pensacola, FL.

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 119

This debate will follow a discussion format. Audience members are encouraged to participate. The debate will focus both on the US government’s opposition to domestic terrorism, including Congressional legislation and discussion by government officials as to what it means to be a terrorist. North Texas will engage the argument that the government’s stance damages social movements by labeling some of their strategies as terrorism. Long Beach will discuss alternative strategies, such as silence, that may provide empowering options for social movements.

Should the Patriot Act of 2001 be repealed?

What role does religious rhetoric play in the justifications for violence?
What role does religion play in the responses to the September 11 attacks?

AFFIRMATIVE: John Rains IV, Emory University, John Rains III, Tampa Preparatory School and attorney. NEGATIVE: Rania Nasreddine. Emory University, Rashad Evans, State University of West Georgia. William Southworth, University of Redlands.

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 20

Our debate centers around several questions: what role does religious rhetoric play in the justifications for violence in the post-September 11 world? Should violent actions be committed in the name of God? Is violence ever an appropriate response to violence? The debate will discuss both the military strikes against Afghanistan and the merits of further military action elsewhere in the world.

Is the media a necessary force for a civil society in the post-September 11th world?
Is the media a necessary and sufficient force for a vibrant civil society in the post-September 11th world?

Andrew Barnes and Scott O’Donnell, Clarion University vs. Nora Cronin and Michael Hagan, Mary Washington College, Moderator: Anand Rao, Clarion State University

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 21

This public debate will focus on a critical and constructive appraisal of the media in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States. Topics to be discussed in this public debate include: fairness and accuracy in reporting, censorship, graphic representations of violence and destruction, constructions of racial and ethnic identity, the dramatization and commodification of personal experiences, and the media’s role in shaping public deliberation. One of the goals of this debate is to generate practical ways to improve our mediated civil society as we live in the post-September 11th world.

What have been the Media Reactions to September 11?
Communication Reactions to September 11: A Roundtable Discussion

Panelists: Holly Victorson, Breena Meng, Nicholas Russell, Brandy Johnson, Arizona State University. David Cram Helwich, University of Pittsburgh.

LOCATION: Carswell Hall, Room 05

Panelists will explore the reactions to the events of September 11 from the Critical Left, the Muslim, Jewish and Queer communities. Discussion will revolve around media presentations of the groups’ reactions and the reactions by the groups that are made public.

Military Implications

Should the US withdraw military forces from Afghanistan?
Military Intervention: Revisiting the Debate.

Pullout Good: Tejinder Singh, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Russ Falconer, Emory University, Alexander Berger, Dartmouth College, Calum Matheson, Michigan State University
Pullout Bad: Dan Shalmon, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Ben Thorpe, Dartmouth College, Jonathan Paul, Northwestern University, & Andrew Ryan, University of Iowa
Moderator: Adrienne Brovero, Northwestern University.

LOCATION: Annenberg Forum, Carswell Hall, 111

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, Congress granted the President sweeping authority to conduct military operations to combat the threat of terrorism. The resolution passed through only the most superficial debate, the lone dissenting voice a Representative from Berkeley. Considering the events of the last few weeks, it appears that Congressional discussion gave short shrift to those who questioned the wisdom of military retaliation, and that Representative Lee is not the only voice of reasoned opposition. Our discussion will flesh out the political, economic, and ethical considerations at issue in the question of military action against Afghanistan. The discussion will integrate not only strategic themes, but also moral ones.

When is military intervention justified?
Resolved : That US military intervention against states accused of sponsoring terrorism is unjustified.

AFFIRMATIVE : Samson Enzer and Kevin Kneupper, Wake Forest University. NEGATIVE : Greta Stahl and David Strauss, Michigan State University. Moderator: Jim Brey, Florida State University.

LOCATION: Carswell Hall, Room 101

This debate focus on the core question of whether a military response to the September 11th attacks is appropriate. Is the US justified in using military force against states that sponsor terrorist activities? Is this option superior to diplomatic, nonmilitary efforts? The debate will include time for audience questions and statements.

Should the US accelerate research and deployment of a National Missile Defense?
Should the US accelerate research and deployment of a National Missile Defense?

AFFIRMATIVE: Sarah Gragert & Andy Nolan, Georgetown University, NEGATIVE: Chris Loznegard and Peter McCollum, Gonzaga University
MODERATOR: Stefan Bauschard, Boston College

LOCATION: Carswell Hall, Room 302

This debate seeks to answer the question of whether the terrorist attacks of earlier this year present substantive reason to take further defensive military measures to protect United States citizens. Specifically, whether the attacks warrant a “Star Wars” defense system. We will discuss three areas of concern: 1) Whether the strategic implications of terrorism warrant missile defense. 2) The political and moral implications of missile defense. 3) How effectively a national missile defense can deter or defend against attacks against the United States.

Is military intervention unjust?
Resolved : That US military intervention against states accused of sponsoring terrorism is unjustified.

AFFIRMATIVE : Samson Enzer and Kevin Kneupper, Wake Forest University. NEGATIVE : Greta Stahl and David Strauss, Michigan State University. Moderator: Jim Brey, Florida State University.

LOCATION: Carswell Hall, Room 101

This debate focus on the core question of whether a military response to the September 11th attacks is appropriate. Is the US justified in using military force against states that sponsor terrorist activities? Is this option superior to diplomatic, nonmilitary efforts? The debate will include time for audience questions and statements.

Should the US response be deployment of the missile defense system?

Resolved: The US Government should deploy a full or limited form of national missile defense in response to the September 11 terrorism attacks.

AFFIRMATIVE: Carl Sammartino and Jonah Feldman, U of Michigan. NEGATIVE: Austin Carson and Amber Watkins, Michigan State University
ADJUDICATOR: Ken Strange, Dartmouth College

LOCATION: Carswell Hall, Room 301

In light of current congressional debate over deployment of the National Missile Defense as a response to foreign terrorism, a discussion about the merits of such a foreign policy move has gained a new dimension. Will the National Missile Defense dissuade potential attacks on both the United States and foreign allies? What impact will the National Missile Defense have on our allies and the strength of the anti-terrorism coalition, particularly Russia and Europe? Does the threat of terrorist organizations acquiring ballistic missiles necessitate the use of an NMD?

Foreign Policy Implications

Should terrorist acts be treated as ‘crimes’ rather than as ‘acts of war’?
Should terrorist acts should be treated as ‘crimes’ rather than as ‘acts of war.’?

AFFIRMATIVE: Adam Webber, University of Pittsburgh, Denise Olczak, University of Pittsburgh, Kevin Ayotte, University of Pittsburgh
NEGATIVE: Danielle Wiese, University of Iowa, Scott Varda, Florida State University, Glenn Prince, University of South Carolina
MODERATOR: Paul Skiermont, Federal Appellate Court, Nebraska

LOCATION: Calloway Hall, Room 17

This debate seeks to provide a forum for examining the role of language in representing and shaping American foreign policy to address terrorism. The debate will focus on three general lines of argument each dealt with by paired affirmative and negative speeches. 1) Calling terrorism an “act of war” invokes a foreign policy framework of realpolitik, inducing a Cold War mindset that emphasizes militaristic actions, such as airstrikes against Afghanistan. Yet the term “war” was first invoked by the attackers and the media. Moreover, criticism of the language distances us from the suffering experienced throughout the world and trades-off with conversations about political alternatives to the current military situation. 2) Treating terrorism as a “crime” suggests an orientation toward individual responsibility. Criminal justice targets the individual guilty of terrorism, but “war” risks being carried beyond the limited circumstances in which military action might be justified. However, a rhetorical shift to “crime” might encourage complacency, allowing future acts to occur as little action is taken on the subject. 3) The labeling of terrorism as an “act of war” works rhetorically to deflect reflexive examination of our own role in producing the conditions for terrorism. The discourse of “war,” especially a “just war,” discourages us from even having such a conversation. On the other hand, any critical examination that could occur under a label of “crime” might work equally well under the label of “war.” There will be a significant amount of time for audience questions following each set of paired speeches. Following the initial speeches and questions, the judge/moderator will present a response/reaction to the discussion thus far, to be followed by an open forum for discussion among the audience, debaters, and moderator.

Should the US pursue a nonviolent foreign policy agenda in response to the September 11th attacks?
Should the US pursue a nonviolent foreign policy agenda in response to the September 11th attacks?

AFFIRMATIVE: John Nagy and Adrianne Barnett, Mary Washington College, VA. NEGATIVE: Rebecca Evans and Douglas Squire, West VirginiaUniversity. Moderator: Roger Solt, University of Kentucky.

LOCATION: Greene Hall, Room 251

This debate focuses on whether or not a policy of nonviolence would be a more effective response to the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States. This debate will seek answers to the following questions: 1) Are current US military actions in Afghanistan achieving their purpose? 2) Would a foreign policy guided by the principles of nonviolence be a more effective response to terrorism? 3) What are the geopolitical ramifications of a US policy of nonviolence? The debate will feature 30 minutes of audience question time.

Should the Government negotiate with terrorists?
Should the U.S. negotiate with those who commit terrorist acts?
AFFIRMATIVE: Lisa Heller, University of Pittsburgh, Justin Parmett, University of South Carolina, Brian Lacy, University of South Carolina. NEGATIVE: Peter Klein, University of Pittsburgh, Nicole Serrano, Dartmouth College and Jason Lawrence, University of Pittsburgh. Moderator: John Fritch, Southwest Missouri State University.

LOCATION: Greene Hall, Room 253

Negotiations are often seen as preferred methods of conflict resolution in international relations. In the best of circumstances, agreements forged through diplomacy serve as bulwarks against escalating violence and mutual destruction. However, there are unique challenges raised by the prospect of conducting negotiations with those who have committed terrorist acts. Some commentators suggest that persons who commit terrorist acts are not capable of genuine diplomacy. Others suggest that pursuit of diplomacy in this context may be seen as an inappropriate reward for terrorism. This debate explores these issues in a discussion that will likely become more salient as the “war on terrorism” plays out and more diplomatic alternatives to military action are proposed and considered.

Have we learned the lessons of Vietnam?
We haven’t learned from Vietnam.

Thad Blank and Charles Olney, Whitman College, WA, will debate Cristie DeVoss and Geoff Zeiger, University of Puget Sound, WA
Moderator: Bill Newnam, Emory University

LOCATION: Greene Hall, Room 250

The debate will question whether the current approach to the war against terrorism must be rethought and ended based on the experience of the
Vietnam War or if, in fact, the Vietnam experience shows that vigilance is required and provides the necessary conceptual tools to win the war on terrorism.

Should the United States maintain its unconditional support of the state of Israel?
Resolved: That the United States should maintain its unconditional support of the state of Israel.

AFFIRMATIVE: Tom O’Gorman and Danielle Verney, Catholic University of America. NEGATIVE: Patrick Waldinger and Paul Strait, Catholic University of America. Moderator John Katsulas, Boston College.

LOCATION: Greene Hall, Room 321

It has been suggested that the US policy of unconditional support toward Israel is one of the causes of anti-American terrorism. In light of this claim, the question is, should we reconsider the nature of our support for Israel. The affirmative in this debate will defend our current foreign policy toward Israel and the negative will advocate a more “balanced” foreign policy that tilts more toward Palestinian and other Arab positions.

Educational Implications

Is Temporarily Changing the topic a desirable response to the attacks?
Resolved: Is Temporarily Changing the topic a desirable response to the attacks?

Greene Hall, Room 233

Panelists: Brian Ward & Dave Guidry, Whitman College, : Jessica Gates & Ron Ringuette, University of Puget Sound, Ruth Beerman, David Cisneros, Erin Witte, and Blake Abbott, Mercer University. Moderator: Michael Hester, State University of West Georgia.

The discussion addresses the relationship that debate has to “socially important issues.” The dangers of adopting a socially activist/ social responsive view of debate are examined. Analysis of the rhetoric used to justify the change in format will be a focus of the debate. The forum will also consider the following issues: 1) How has the idea of Rounds 7 and 8 affected debate and debaters this year? 2) What other responses would be more appropriate? 3) What should we do with the current topic of Indian Country?