College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:13:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Bioethics Controversy Paper Proposal  (Read 7548 times)
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« on: April 23, 2012, 08:08:58 PM »

by Jarrod Atchison, Ph.D., Francisco Bencosme, Joel Diamond, Sarah Godwin, Richard Min, Amanda Pham, Alexis Shklar

Thanks to the Wake folks for a great model of developing a paper using an academic course as the foundation.

* Bioethics Controversy Proposal Paper.pdf (1149.68 KB - downloaded 4688 times.)
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
David Mullins
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2012, 06:36:44 AM »

Did any words other than regulate come up in your literature scan? My hope is that is a more limited mechanism can be found for this exceptional topic area.

 Bioethics 2012 - Resistance is Futile - You will be assimilated
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 06:42:25 AM by David Mullins » Logged
Jarrod Atchison
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 54


« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2012, 08:30:26 AM »


We jumped onto regulation early in the process because we were hoping for a mechanism that could fit as a legal or domestic topic depending on how the CEDA topic rotation amendment goes. We think that the community presumption is now strongly against constraining the topic committee so we have no problem with the committee investigating other mechanisms if they think regulation is too broad.   
Logged
ScottElliott
Full Member
***
Posts: 148


« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 09:52:43 AM »

I think the better solvency mechanism would be, "....through legislation, regulation, and/or treaty ratification." This would capture the depth of the solvency mechanisms for the bioethics problem area.

Scott
Logged
nryan
Full Member
***
Posts: 211


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2012, 03:02:51 PM »

I was reading through the paper and wondered, does regulation include incentives? The paper briefly hints that regulation could be both mandates and incentives in the discussion of "compulsory licensing". If this is true then regulation seems to be bidirectional in terms of what the aff can do. I know the paper recommends regulation as the term to make it either a legal or a domestic topic, but is there a better phrase that could force the aff to be a mandate or an incentive, and make the other neg ground? I know there's a need for more AFF flexibility, but it seems like with the term regulation it makes for a little too much aff ground.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 11:36:36 AM by nryan » Logged
dylanquigley
Newbie
*
Posts: 28


« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2012, 04:13:40 PM »

The topic paper seems to limit regulations to only human-based bioethical controversy areas (for lack of a better phrase), but the wording of the potential resolution seems to make regulating GMOs and other ag related "genetic materials" (including animals) debates topical. It seems like "ban/regulate GMO crops", "ban pharmaceutical animal testing" and "ban genetic modification of livestock" are all topical, among many others. Was this intended?

I was impressed by the solvency evidence provided in the paper but have some concern about the quality and diversity of the harms areas discussed by the topic paper. A year of debates over patent length and whether disease or pharmaceutical industry lead to extinction does not sound all that enticing.  Yet there seems to be a great diversity of interesting harms areas possible based on the wording. If the resolution in the paper was adopted as is, without limiting it only to the harms areas outlined in the topic paper, I would be rather excited to debate this resolution. My fear is, of course, that the committee process will squeeze all the fun out of it and stick strictly to the "human only" spirit of the paper. Debating biotechnology without, at least, talking about agricultural GMOs seems much like trying to talk about immigration by only talking about visas.
Logged
max.o.archer
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2012, 03:04:01 PM »

Seems like it could be "fun" to talk about the non-human applications of bioethics, but I'm not sure that's the intent of this paper.  I would be interested to see how a GMOs topic may have changed since Europe (03-04), but then again, we had some pretty fun debates about crops and livestock on Ag Topic (08-09).
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!