what are economic sanctions?

Robert P. O'Quinn of the Heritage Foundation offers a backgrounder on economic sanctions. Very useful for those trying to understand what sanctions are--and aren't.

a PDF for the merit pay resolution

Evidence on teacher / school effects on student achievement.

an interesting graphic about vaccination

From the World Health Organization: how many deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases, worldwide, in 2002?

six ways to take down an argument

Your opponent has made a claim, likely supported with evidence. How do you rebut it? Here are six basic strategies.

(Note: there's not one right way to approach any given claim. You might use 1 or 2 of these tactics--some work well in combination--but you'll never have time to use all six on 1 argument. Nor would you want to, because you'd be more likely to contradict yourself or seem uncertain.)

Insignificance
Your opponent's argument, even if true, is unimportant because...
*Its impact is statistically small
*Its benefit is too difficult to measure or define
*It is outweighed by other more salient or important factors or causes

Irrelevance
Your opponent's argument, even if true, is unimportant because...
*It is off-topic (or "nonresolutional")
*It solves a different problem
*It is a distraction or "red herring" (a logical fallacy)

Inconsistency
Your opponent's argument, even if true, contradicts one of their other arguments.

Doubt
Your opponent's claim lacks evidence or warrant, because...
*It has no empirical support (facts, statistics, research)
*Its evidence is not related to the claim
*The evidence offered is insufficient or incorrect
*If nothing else, it doesn't square with common sense

Denial
Your opponent's argument is factually or logically incorrect.

Retort
Your opponent's argument is true--and is actually a point for your side!

Black's Law definitions for the current resolutions

Black's Law Dictionary (8th edition) is one of the premier sources for credible definitions, since it's geared at the legal community and edited by legal scholars.

I've posted a couple potentially useful definitions for the November (or Nov/Dec) resolutions. (If you find a good one elsewhere, post it in the comments!)

For the LD resolution:

Public health: 1. The health of the community at large. 2. The healthful or sanitary condition of the general body of people or the community en masse; especially, the methods of maintaining the health of the community, as by preventive medicine and organized care for the sick.

Compulsory: Mandated by legal process or by statute.

And for the PuFo resolution:

Threat: 1. A communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another's property. 2. An indication of an approaching menace. 3. A person or thing that might well cause harm. (#3 is probably the most grammatically justifiable.)

debate: topics for study

Student Congress--soon to be called Congressional Debate--in the state of Washington uses this legislative packet (pdf) through December.

The November-December LD resolution is:

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

It's covered on my personal blog here, with more to come. Feel free to post your cases on this blog so others may view them.

The November Public Forum topic is:

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

A basic introduction to Public Forum debate is available here (pdf).

How does the ICC relate to the current Palestinian/Israel conflict?

The United Nations, along with most of the world, has condemned Israel's assault on Gaza. A recent article in The Guardian discusses the possibility of the issue being brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a war crimes case. Unfortunately, the issue falls under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rather than the ICC, because neither side has signed the Rome statute of the ICC. This could be an argument for why the United States ought to join the court: with US support, the ICC could hear the case if the UN security council were to refer it to the court (which would be impossible right now due to the US's veto power on the council and its completely pro-Israel stance). This is definitely an issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 900 Palestinians have died, humanitarian aid has been cut off, and Israel is firing white phosphorous in Gaza. Because of the apparent powerlessness of the UN, ICJ, and ICC, there's nothing to stop this. Could the ICC do something if it had US support? Maybe not, but it would at least have the same power as a tribunal, so it might be able to at least stop some of the violence. Instead we have to stand by and watch as hundreds of people are killed and the perpetrators go unpunished until a tribunal is held after the fact. If nothing else, the ICC's status as a permanent court would enable it to take action faster than an ad hoc tribunal. But it can't, because (among other reasons) the US won't back it up. Meanwhile, innocent people are being killed every day.