Menu
Cart
Book Cover

September-October 2018 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas: Confidential Sources

  • $ 25.00


PURCHASE AND DOWNLOAD RIGHT NOW!!

Big Sky Debate is pleased to release its September-October 2018 NSDA Lincoln- Douglas resources on confidential sources!

The resolution, released by the National Speech and Debate Association on August 8, 2018, is:

Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources.

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!

Confidential Sources Index

META

  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES: DIFFERENT THAN ANONYMOUS SOURCES
  • JOURNALISTS: DIFFICULT TO DEFINE IN 2018
  • JOURNALISTS: INTENT IS CRITICAL
  • “REPORTER’S PRIVILEGE”
  • BRANZBURG SUMMARIZED

AFFIRMATIVE

  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: CRITICAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTING
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: CRITICAL FOR NEWS-GATHERING
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: CRITICAL FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: MUST PROTECT SOURCES TO AVOID MAKING JOURNALISTS AN ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: ALL ETHICAL CODES FOR JOURNALISM REQUIRE IT
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: REQUIRED FOR PRESS FREEDOM
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: ELIMINATING PROTECTION HURTS FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: SUPCO HAS GENERALLY SUPPORTED
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: LOWER COURTS HAVE GENERALLY SUPPORTED
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES GOOD: ALMOST ALL STATE SHIELD SOURCES
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES IN DANGER: JOURNALISTS INCREASINGLY CALLED INTO COURT FOR SOURCES
  • FORMAL PROTECTION GOOD: SHOULD SUPPORT ETHICS IN JOURNALISM
  • FORMAL PROTECTION GOOD: SHOULD SHIELD SOURCES AND EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF JOURNALISTS
  • FORMAL PROTECTION GOOD: MUST SCALE BACK THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY TO COMPEL TESTIMONY
  • FORMAL PROTECTION GOOD: CRITICAL FOR DEMOCRACY
  • A/T: BALANCE/SITUATIONAL POSITIONS

NEGATIVE

  • BALANCE POSITION: NO EASY AND FAST RULES
  • BALANCE POSITION: CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR ESSENTIAL SITUATIONS ONLY
  • BALANCE POSITION: COURTS SUPPORT A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH, MAKING JUDGEMENTS ON EACH CASE
  • BALANCE POSITION: FUNCTIONAL APPROACH IS BEST APPROACH
  • BALANCE POSITIONS: MUST WEIGH CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE PROTECTION AGAINST OTHER RIGHTS, LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: = BAD JOURNALISM
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: HURTS SOURCE SCRUTINY
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: SUPREME COURT HASN’T PROTECTED SOURCES
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: LOWER COURTS DIFFER ON PROTECTIONS
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: LAWS VARY STATE TO STATE ON PROTECTION   
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: NO NATIONAL CONSENSUS EXISTS
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: ANONYMOUS SPEECH = YUCK
  • CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES BAD: MUST BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE SPEAKER AS MUCH AS THE SPEECH
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: JOURNALISTS MAKE MISTAKES
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: NO DEFINITION OF JOURNALIST
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: JOURNALISTS DON’T AGREE ON THE STANDARD, YIKES!
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: NO NEED; COURT PRESSURE DOESN’T FORCE JOURNALISTS TO REVEAL
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: EVEN SHIELD LAWS RECOGNIZE EXCEPTIONS
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: MUST HAVE NATIONAL SECURITY EXCEPTIONS
  • ABSOLUTE PROTECTION BAD: MAKING SOURCE PROTECTION PARAMOUNT HURTS TRUTH-TELLING
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: SHOULD PROTECT SOURCES, NOT JOURNALISTS
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: CAPTURES ALL AFFIRMATIVE CLAIMS
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: BETTER FOR NEW MEDIA
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE BETTER: NEWS ACTORS CAN STILL PUSH FOR DEFENSE OF RIGHTS
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: BETTER FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: BETTER FOR DIALOGUE
  • SOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE: FIRM SUPPORT EXISTS FOR ANONYMOUS SPEECH
  • A/T: JOURNALISTS HAVE STRONG/SIGNIFICANT RIGHTS
  • A/T: CASE LAW DOESN’T SUPPORT SHIELDING SOURCES
  • A/T: WE SHOULD PROTECT JOURNALISTS
  • A/T: FOURTH ESTATE MODELS/RHETORIC
  • A/T: JOURNALISM SAFEGUARDS DEMOCRACY
  • A/T: CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES = FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

            We Also Recommend