Menu
Cart
November-December 2018 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas: Candidate Privacy

November-December 2018 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas: Candidate Privacy

  • $ 25.00


PURCHASE AND DOWNLOAD RIGHT NOW!!

Big Sky Debate is pleased to release its November-December 2018 NSDA Lincoln- Douglas resources on candidate privacy!

The resolution, released by the National Speech and Debate Association on October 1, 2018, is:

Resolved: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office.

A list of briefs for this book appears below.

Continued this season: Get both the PDF and Word versions of the book. Copy and paste Big Sky Debate’s excellent research into your own briefs, or, print out the PDF and file the old-fashioned way!

As in the past, you can expect our evidence to be timely and to the core of the topic. Compare similar services without Big Sky Debate’s seasoned research staff at three to five times the cost!  Why pay more?

Have a GREAT topic!!! Our NSDA LD resources are an unbeatable $25.00.

OR, click here to start a season-long subscription, or here to look at one of Big Sky Debate’s value-priced packages!

Candidate Privacy Index

META 

  • NEWSWORTHY STANDARD IS UNCLEAR 

AFFIRMATIVE 

  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PRIVATE LIVES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS GOOD 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: “PRIVACY” IS USED TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: PERSONAL INFORMATION INFORMS THE PUBLIC ON PERFORMANCE 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: VOTERS GET TO DECIDE WHAT MATTERS 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: CHARACTER MATTERS 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: IF DONORS MATTER, SO DOES CANDIDATE PRIVATE INFORMATION 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: THE MEDIA REGULATES OUT INFORMATION THAT IS UNFAIR/TOO SENSITIVE 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: COURTS FAVOR A PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: FREE EXPRESSION SUPPORTS A PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW 
  • RIGHT TO KNOW GOOD: CANDIDATES KNOW OF THE HIGH STANDARD SET FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS 
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE GOOD: CANDIDATES HAVE HAD UNDISCLOSED ILLNESSES THAT IMPACTED THEIR DUTIES 
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE GOOD: WE CAN HAVE DISCLOSURES WITHOUT DISCLOSING FULL RECORDS 
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE GOOD: DISCLOSURE TAKES AWAY FROM DISTRACTION 
  • DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE: CURRENT MEDIA POSTURE MAKES DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE 
  • DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE: CANDIDATES PUSH OUT INFORMATION THEMSELVES 
  • DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE: WE CULTURALLY DEMAND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND THAT’S THE STANDARD 
  • DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE: CANDIDATES RELEASE THE INFORMATION THEMSELVES 
  • DISCLOSURE INEVITABLE: HIDING INFORMATION IS DIFFICULT/DESTRUCTIVE 
  • A/T: PRIVACY ABSOLUTE 
  • A/T: NOBODY’S PERFECT 
  • A/T: NEWS IS SENSATIONALIZED 
  • A/T: SEXUAL CONTENT SHOULD BE PRIVATE 
  • A/T: LEAVE FAMILIES ALONE! 

NEGATIVE

  • BALANCE NEGATIVE: THE RIGHT TO KNOW IS BALANCED VERY SHORT OF COMPLETE DISCLOSURE
  • BALANCE NEGATIVE: WE SHOULD RESPECT PRIVACY WITH EXCEPTIONS
  • BALANCE NEGATIVE: MUST AVOID SENSATIONALISM REGARDING PRIVATE LIVES
  • BALANCE NEGATIVE: BLANKET RULES (AND VOTING AFFIRMATIVE) IMPOSSIBLE
  • PRIVACY PARADOX: RECENT TREND IS TOWARD MORE PRIVACY, WHY NOT FOR POLITICIANS
  • PRIVACY GOOD: WE NEED A ZONE OF PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES
  • PRIVACY GOOD: OTHER COUNTRIES MANAGE CANDIDATE PRIVACY WITH STABLE DEMOCRACIES
  • PRIVACY GOOD: PRIVACY FOR CANDIDATES MEANS PRIVACY FOR ALL
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: MODERN MEDIA MAKES PERSONAL INFORMATION A REALITY SHOW
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: DISCOURAGES GOOD PEOPLE FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: LEADS TO JUNK NEWS
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: DISTRACTS FROM SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: PERFORMANCE SHOULD BE ONLY STANDARD
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: MEDIA MAKES PRIVATE INFORMATION SENSATIONAL
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ARE NOT CONNECTED
  • PUBLIC EXPOSURE BAD: THE “PERFECT LEADER” GOAL IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: MUST LIMIT GENETIC INFO RELEASE/DISCRIMINATION
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: CANDIDATES ARE PUSHED INTO DISCLOSING INFORMATION
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: MUST PROTECT DOCTOR-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: HEALTH RECORDS ARE MISLEADING/MEANINGLESS
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: PROVIDE NO INSIGHT ON LEADERSHIP/PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: NO CLEAR LINE EXISTS
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: BIAS AGAINST MENTAL/OTHER HEALTH ISSUES MAKES THAT INFORMATION NECESSARY TO PROTECT
  • HEALTH DISCLOSURE BAD: “RELEVANCE” STANDARD BAD
  • A/T: LET THE VOTERS DECIDE

              We Also Recommend