Hell March

If you like Hunter S. Thompson and his gonzo journalism, here's a pretty good piece on the current state of the mail order bride industry.

Actually, if you've ever wondered what exactly the mail order bride industry was all about, this is a good place to start as any.

An excerpt:

Again and again, my companions declared that they weren’t looking for a sex tour, and that neither were they simply looking for a servant to cook for them and clean their home—that it was a real companion they sought. Each consistently made a point of saying how intelligent their dates were, even if their outing had only lasted for half an hour and had taken place without a common language between them. One, a California contractor with a seething, hostile energy and the blue-eyed, mustachioed handsomeness of a 1970s porn star, summed it up thusly: “I don’t want someone that I’m going to run; I need somebody’s help. I need an opinion. I’m not out to pound a bunch of pussy. If that’s what I want, I’ll go down to the whorehouse.”

But what they really wanted, and what most imagined they would find in Ukraine, was a fusion of 1950s gender sensibilities with a twenty-first-century hypersexuality. Along with everything else, the men had heard that the women here were “wild,” “uninhibited,” that being with them was “a whole different ball game.” As always, Dan the Man had done his part to stoke this fantasy, peppering his talk of traditional values and wifely devotion with just the right amount of lasciviousness. “I’ve heard stories from all the guys who have been married to them, and they all say the same thing: they definitely are much, much, much more passionate, much more open-minded,” he told us at one point. “This guy, he’s been married for six, seven years and his wife is just as crazy, they have threesomes all the time.” The vision was Madonna and puttana rolled together, an American male desire shaped in equal parts by the Promise Keepers and Internet porn.

Weird Science

Some science issues that might lead to interesting debates.

Just remember, when debating on science, be careful not to deal too much with specifics. When that happens, the debate tends to go to shit.

Some science bloggers wonder out loud about the dangers of researching on the possible biological origins of homosexuality. Which, in a debate, may be discussed with a motion like,

This house condemns the continued scientific research on the possible biological origins of homosexuality.

Another blog talks about the current double standards that the US administration has with regards to being "pro-life". And no, it's not just a picking between embryos who can potentially become babies and the people who have diseases that might be cured by embryonic stem cell research. It's also to do with the US government completely ignoring the thousands of embryos currently in frozen storage waiting to be discarded the moment the couples who made them stop their payment for their storage. This therefore begs the question: if the Republicans are so pro-life, why aren't they doing anything to 'save' the potential lives of these thousands of embryos?

Which leads us to a motion that might be something like,

This house believes that the government has the responsibility to take care of all unused embryos in storage.

This has the underlying logic that in a country much like George Bush's United States where embryos and unborn children are increasingly acquiring the rights we accrue to actual living minors, then in the same way that the government has children of the State, the government should also have embryos of the State.

After all, as Karl Rove said, "we were all embryos once..." and young.

Lastly, this might seem old, but I never recalled debating on this in the 5-6 years I've been debating, so I think it's a good time to start discussing this. Especially since it's becoming a hot topic once again.

This house supports the testing of animals for scientific progress.

If you want to make it harder for the opposition, make it "the ethical testing".

And for those of you wondering where to get more scientific political goodness, there's The Scientific Activist for you.

Jon Stewart on Net Neutrality

By far the easiest and simplest explanation of how the internet works and what net neutrality is. If you can't be bothered to read up on the stuff, at least watch this.

On Divorce

Here's a situation: Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl gets married, boy and girl start to hate each other and separate, boy (or girl) start divorce proceedings, during divorce proceedings boy (or girl) die. What happens?

That's the new question people are asking. Do you allow for posthumous divorces to take place?

You might ask yourself, what's the point? They can't get any more divorced than THAT!

Then again, there are other things that need to be considered. To summarize what's said in the article, what happens to deceased spouse's estate if said spouse died before signing divorce papers or updating his/her will?

That's basically the problem. Under current law (but correct me if I'm wrong here), since they're still married, surviving spouse gets everything, unless specified in the will. Posthumous divorces address that problem by allowing the division of assets that would otherwise have happened had deceased spouse wasn't actually deceased.

The question is, should that happen in the first place?

In this debate, much like any other debate concerning dead people, you have to prove whether or not dead people have rights in the first place. If they don't prove that they should.

On the other side of the coin, you need to prove why they shouldn't, or barring that, why the rights of the living need to be prioritized. Corollary to that, you also need to prove that the rights of the living and the rights of the dead are actually in conflict.

Be careful though, as opposition in a debate like this, it's very very easy to come across as cold and insensitive. Be very careful with what you say.

English as a First Language

One of the stranger issues that've come out of the United States is Lobbyists who are advocating for English Langauge reform. By English Language reform, they mean they want to change how English is spelled from the current status quo to being spelled phonetically.

However, there HAS been precedent for this. Not in the last fifty years or so, sure, but it's been done before. The last time, If my knowledge of history is correct, was to take out redundant letters (e.g. doughnut becomes donut) to save on space when it comes to publishing.

It's basically a practicality vs. principle debate. And like most practicality vs. principle debate, you either have to prove which side has both, or if your side (be it more practical or more principled) is the higher value.

On Argumentation

I read this commentary on today's issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and I just had to laugh. Hard. The arguments that this person had to say about death penalty were that ridiculous, I couldn't believe that he was a former justice of the Sandiganbayan. Read it, and I hope I need not explain to you how exactly almost everything he said was patently absurd as arguments supporting the death penalty.

Reflections on the death penalty abolition

By Manuel R. Pamaran
Inquirer
Last updated 02:06am (Mla time) 07/02/2006

Published on Page A11 of the July 2, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

WITHOUT much debate and public hearing, Congress passed the bill abolishing the death penalty and the President signed it into law. In these times when heinous crimes imperil the daily lives of peaceful citizens, and unabated graft and corruption hinders the country’s economic growth, the justifications for the abolition are flimsy.

Among the main reasons given for the abolition of the death penalty are: (1) it is not an effective deterrent to crimes; (2) human life is God-given, therefore, it must be respected and only God has the right to take it; (3) a death sentence that has been executed can no longer be remedied; and (4) it deprives a convict the opportunity to reform.

On the first reason, let it be stressed that the death penalty was re-imposed by Republic Act 7659 only on Jan. 1, 1994. Since then, not more than 10 convicts have been executed despite the fact that there are more than a thousand death convicts. Besides, most of the death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment, if not indefinitely suspended. In short, there had been no real implementation of the death penalty law; therefore, there is not enough basis to say whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crimes.

To be an effective deterrent, the “threat” of death penalty should be complemented with the efficient and speedy administration of justice in the arrest, investigation and trial of the accused. Without this complement, death penalty would be a lonely scarecrow. Worse, in the absence of both—death penalty and efficient, speedy justice—our country will not be a wholesome place to live in.

On the second issue, the purpose of the death penalty is to uphold the sanctity of life. The taking of human life is justified by necessity under certain circumstances. One such situation is “self-defense.” Another is the defense of the person or right of one’s wife, ascendants, brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degree, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree; and of the person or right of a stranger under circumstances analogous to self-defense. (Art. 11, Par. 1, Revised Penal Code)
Under the law, the author thereof is freed from any and all liability, it being understood that had he not done the act, he or the person he defended would have been killed.

If under such circumstances -- where at stake is only the life of the person defending or being defended -- killing is justified, the more reason that the State is justified to take human life in defense of thousands of other lives and of the community itself. This, undoubtedly, gives greater meaning to the sacredness of human life.

Viewed from another angle, the abolition of the death penalty seriously sets back our fight against graft and corruption, especially against plunder which is punishable by death. It puts in serious doubt our thrusts toward and avowals for a clean and honest government.

As to the third issue, it is unlikely that someone innocent could be a “victim of execution.” The victim of a crime or his heir -- knowing that accusing an innocent person will set free the real wrongdoer and, therefore, he will not get justice -- will in all likelihood see to it that he accuses only the person who has wronged him. This is human nature and is not debatable.

Moreover, our judicial system practically reduces to zero any error of judgment: A criminal complaint is first filed with the police officer who conducts an investigation to determine if there is a reasonable ground to charge the suspect. If such ground is found to exist, the case is forwarded to the prosecutor who in turn conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause showing a crime has been committed and the suspect is probably guilty thereof. In the event of a positive finding, the case is filed with a regional trial court. If the accused is convicted and sentenced to death, his case is reviewed by the Court of Appeals and if affirmed, it goes up to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The votes of at least eight of the 15 justices are needed to affirm a death sentence. All these proceedings are done in succession and are adversarial in nature: the accused, assisted by counsel, is given his day in court to confront the witness(es) against him and to present witness(es) in his behalf. If there is even just an iota of doubt about his guilt, he is absolved or acquitted of the crime.

In the event that the death sentence is affirmed by the Supreme Court and becomes final, the accused has still a chance to have his case reviewed, this time by the President who decides whether or not the accused deserves to be granted executive clemency.

Lastly, the claim that the death penalty offers the criminal no room for reform is not accurate. On the contrary, it is the best way to reform criminals. In a limited sense, it may be said that the executed criminal will never have a chance to reform; but from a wider perspective, we can say that reformation occurs when criminals avoid suffering the same fate by not persisting in their evil ways. If they do, they have only themselves to blame if they end up with the death penalty.

Montaigne, a French essayist, once said: “We do not aim to correct the man we hang; we correct and warn others by him.” Voltaire, another French poet, said it another way: “Life resembles the banquet of Damocles; the sword is ever suspended.”

At this point, all I can really do is shake my head.

Again, THIS is a Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

The most uncomfortable post I've ever had to write.

I was never an expert in the social sciences. Sure, I took a few courses of sociology, but I mostly just slept through those classes (as I am notoriously wont to do) and got by on my charming good loo- I mean, stock knowledge and rational thinking. Same thing went for debate, especially the socio-legal ones. You won't see me debating higher theory or referencing Focault or Stiglitz or whoever great mind is in vogue this particular season. I'm what I'd like to call a blue-collar debater.

Which explains the glass ceiling that I've already reached in debating (and no, Nicolo, I'm not pulling a Cabrera).

In any case, my limitations being what they are, that doesn't stop me from reading up on issues and making up motions and basically just thinking what kind of things would make for a good, balanced, interesting debate. It just stops me from participating in the more complex ones that I think about.

And if there ever was a complex socio-legal debate that is way over my head, it's this one.



Horrible mutations aside, what are the arguments for/against consensual incest?

Possible motion being,

"This house sees nothing wrong with non-reproductive, consensual incestuous relationships."

Here's a good point,

To prohibit two people from having sex because their offspring may be "defective" or "inferior" is to adopt the standpoint of a eugenicist.

My brain cannot go deeper than seeing the issue though. Hell, I feel dirty just posting this.

Bill Bennet and the Daily Show

for those of you that I've bugged to watch this particular episode of the Daily Show since last night, you'll understand why after watching this clip.

Bill Bennett (your traditional Republican personality) was the guest on last night's episode promoting his book, 'America: The Last Best Hope', and the discussion goes towards gay marriage.

Jon Stewart then embarasses Bill Bennett live on tv.

The discussion itself was good. Bill Bennett, complete and total humiliation notwithstanding, gave decent points to ponder. Jon Stewart just had better ideas that were better explained. Nevertheless, the whole gay marriage debate was able to get the proper framing and nuancing that it was supposed to get.

Some choice quotes:

Jon Stewart: ...why not encourage gay people to join in on that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bill Bennett: Gay people are members of families... they already are members of families. They're sons and daughters-

Jon Stewart: -And that's where the buck stops? That's the gay ceiling?

Bill Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man or a woman.

Jon Stewart: I disagree, it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

Take note of that point. In a debate, that's an issue that you have to establish early on. Otherwise, the debate gets bogged down in technicalities and tangents, much in the same way an abortion debate can get bogged down on the question of whether or not a fetus is a living person or not.

More to the point, homosexuality as a human condition takes you on a very different path of argumentation as compared to homosexuality as a random fetish (which, I reccommend no one takes as a premise).

Nevertheless, both are arguable at this time, so either way can go depending on the debate. Makes you wish there was actually some evidence about this, huh?

Which brings us to my favorite part of the discussion:

Bill Bennett: How do you define marriage? Where do you draw the line? Immediately on the heels of this debate, Jon..

Jon Stewart: Don't go slippery slope with me, that's ridiculous.

Bill Bennett: No it isn't. What do you say to the polygamous?

Jon Stewart: You don't say anything to the polygamous... That is a choice to get three or four wives, that is not a biological condition that 'I gots to get laid by different women that I'm married to', that is a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition, there's a huge difference.

Bill Bennett: Well, some people regard their human condition as marrying three women...

Jon Stewart: ...Then let's go slippery slope the other way. If government says I can define marriage as between a man and a woman, what says that they can't define it as between people of different income levels, or they can decide whether or not you are a suitable husband for a particular woman.

Bill Bennett: Because gender matters in marriage. It's mattered in every human society, it matters in every religion...

Jon Stewart: Race matters in every society as well.

Barado. Another reason to develop a man-crush on Jon Stewart.

This particular discussion also gives me an idea for a possible motion for gay marriage with its own nuances (in other words a stock motion... with at twist!),

This house believes that marriage should be defined by governments.

What's particularly tricky about this motion is that it leaves opposition vulnerable to those infamous 'strategic' set-ups people keep talking about.

America's turning into the Philippines one day at a time.

Was the 2004 election stolen?

Read the article closely. You'll notice how some of the ways in which Bush (allegedly) stole the 2004 election are variations of the Philippine tradition of dagdag bawas. The Republicans are turning America into a republic... a Banana Republic. Better start wearing khakis (corny, I know. So sue me).

It's counter point.

Some further analysis on the US Election System here, here and here.

Lions led by Donkeys.

Because you just have to read this piece to see how brilliant the guy is.

There is truth in the idea that soldiers are our designated warriors. But the accidental revelation in these attitudes is the bizarre concept that by soldiers choosing a life of taking risks on our behalf, these war supporters are somehow absolved of any responsibility to them other than emotional support and approval. There is the stink of ... the troops as employees. Like, say, gardeners. Not that I would ever make such a crude comparison.

But the fact is that soldiers make this choice in a specific context. They are not just entering a job. They are, to pull up my Catholic high school education, entering into a covenant with us. They take an oath to sacrifice their lives, if need be. That is, in my faith anyway, the holiest thing a person can do. In return, the civilian side of the covenant is a deep responsibility, a responsibility far beyond the emotional support one gives a sports team, or the minimal responsibility one has with employees. Our oath is simple:

We will make sure you have the equipment you need.

We will make sure have a clearly defined mission.

We will make sure that such missions are as well-planned as possible.

We will take care of your families while you are gone.

We will take care of you when you come home.

Net Neutrality and the COPE Act.

One of the worst things that can happen to a debater is to be caught unawares with a motion that's about an issue that is although relevant, is so out of left field as to leave said debater talking gibberish when it's his/her turn to speak. You're shit-out-of-luck because you don't know anything, and you can't really complain because it is a relevant and current issue (actually even if it's not you CAN complain, except you'd just sound like a whiny ass if you do). Refer to notorious ICANN and lawyer advertising debates in the last NDC as recent examples of this. Of course, every debater already knows the only way to prevent such a thing from happening, especially since every debate seminar almost always hammers in the point - matterloading. Problem is, you can't realistically matterload on EVERYTHING and still remain sane, so the chances of being caught with your pants between your legs is almost always a possibility.


Net Neutrality is one of those issues.

In simple terms, Net Neutrality is a state wherein there is no discrimination of data across the network. In more relevant terms, this means that the largest network in existence, the Internet, flows freely from one user to another. No body, be it your ISP or your government, gets to decide what you do or do not do in the internet. They can't stop you from going to any particular site, nor can they stop you from downloading anything you want. On the other hand, they can't stop you from acquiring viruses either. Filtration of the Internet is completely in the hands of the end user. This is the way the internet has worked since its inception.

The COPE (Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement) Act is an act currently in the US Congress which aims to stop net neutrality. It wants the telecommunications industry to have the power to decide what you can or cannot do on the Internet.

As always, it boils down to a question of right and the extent of it.

More key concepts you need to google for:

"Crowdsourcing"

and

"User-generated Content"

The future of Internet debates will be about these issues.

This week in status quo

• Hungarian researchers find H5N1 bird flu vaccine for humans.


• Falun Gong Concentration Camp in China Discovered.


• Iran to hold talks with US over Iraq.


• UN creates new Human Rights panel.

in other news,

• What does the beer industry and the news media have in common?


• Pregnancy through evolution's eyes.


• What is an Internally Displaced Person(IDP)?

This week in status quo:

Hoping to do a regular feature here, where every Friday I list down what happened over the week that changed the status quo somewhere in the world. I'm not planning to scour the entire world wide web for every news article that reports on some change or other, rather I just plan to post those changes that might be helpful to you (either as analysis or as an example) in debate.

So for this week:

• Google Acquires Web Word Processor Firm


• South Dakota has made abortion illegal


• Dubai Company Backs Off Port Deal


• UK and US to withdraw forces in Iraq early 2007


• US to quit Abu Ghraib

In other, related news, some other articles that might be useful:

• Why US should back out of the India nuclear deal c/o the Economist


• the do-it-yourself abortion: a how-to guide


• Truth and reconciliation vs. Justice - an assessment on War Crimes Tribunals c/o the Economist


• Stop force-feeding Guantamo Prisoners on hunger strike, doctors say

Destruction of Architecture as a War Crime

The wanton destruction of culturally important buildings is now a war crime.

As is explained in this article, one of the crimes charged against Slobodan Milosevic is the "The intentional and wanton destruction of religious and cultural buildings of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat communities.”

Which begs a very interesting question, particularly for debates - should the destruction of culturally significant architecture be considered a war crime? Something similar to this has been debated before in previous tournaments, should the destruction of heritage sites be considered a Crime Against Humanity. It was a debate that used the destruction of the giant buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban (a long long time ago before 9/11 happened) judiciously as an example. Take note of the differences, however, between a Crime Against Humanity, and a War Crime. Also take note of the difference between cultural heritage sites, and architecture. The differences might not be much, but the nuances have been known to make a difference in a debate. For example, the destruction of the Buddha Statues have a different cultural effect to that of, say, the attack on the World Trade Center.

One of the most important ideas presented by the article is how, if 'architectural creation' is a weapon of authority, the converse is also true - architectural destruction is as effective.

Architectural destruction is like a drug. It’s addictive. It’s instant proof of change, of authority. That’s why it is so popular. And that’s why it can become so rabid.

One last thing to take note of is the way that the article packaged architectural destruction that would probably be effective in debate - architectural destruction as cultural genocide.

Why Figure Skating Is Not A Sport

A sport needs to have a quantifiable way to determine a winner and a loser. There can be no debate about the scoring system. A ball must go into a goal or through a hoop; a runner must reach home or finish before the others. The winners run faster, jump higher, score more.

this column makes a pretty good point against ice skating (as well as most other Olympic sports that require human judges) being part of the Olympics. The basic gist is just that, a sport needs to have a quantifiable way to determine a winner and a loser and obviously, judged competitions don't exactly have that. It goes on further to say how other factors (such as appearance) plays a factor in ice skating when, how you look shouldn't even be considered in determining who gets the gold medal.

This makes for a pretty interesting sports debate. One that doesn't require you to have specific knowledge on sports, but rather general knowledge that most of you should know anyway. Simplest motion I could think of with regards to this issue would be This house believes that human evaluated competitions should be banned from the Olympics.

If you're wondering how exactly you can argue against a motion like that, think about it in terms of what the Olympics should be and whether or the characteristic of human judges really disqualify competitions like that from the Olympics. Compare and contrast that to other sports which are quantifiable (such as baseball) and determine what really qualifies a sport/competition to be in the Olympics.

Any other suggestions?

Islamic Editorial Cartoon Issue

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

12 satirical drawings, published by the danish newspaper JP, has reached worldwide attention as well as outrage, violence and condemnation in the muslim world (note: terror has not). The drawings have become a symbol of the muslim threat to free speech. Papers all over the world have re-published the drawings, politicians around the globe have expressed their support, and websites all over hyperspace use and display the images in sympathy.

For those of you wondering what the whole brouhaha is, this is a good place to start. From the looks of it, this will be the face of 'debating Islam as an issue' for the next few months.

Being an Internet Troll is now illegal

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

Given that most Internet debates are now tired and unoriginal (how many variations to filesharing motions can you have?), this is a fresh issue that can be discussed and debated on without necessarily forcing anyone to go into the technical details of the Internet and computers.

Possible motion: This house would ban anonymity from the Internet.

The basic question you need to ask yourself regarding this issue is, is there anything wrong with being anonymous on the Internet? If yes, is this the only way to address the problem? If no, what is the value of anonymity on the Internet?

Dissecting the Anti-Terrorism Bill

after almost a month of no updates, here's some local matter for a change.

Dissecting the Anti-Terrorism Bill

from a local blogger no less! It gives pretty useful insights on what the Anti-Terrorism bill does and what exactly is wrong with it. An excerpt:

No anti-terrorism law can be Constitutional because, in any form, it will be a bill of attainder, something that the Constitution says the Congress shall never pass.

What is a bill of attainder? It is a law that punishes a person for a status or association rather than for the commission of any criminal act. A similar law outlawing the Communist Party of the Philippines was passed decades ago and was attacked exactly on that ground. Believing in communism is not a crime. Communism is a political ideology in the same way that parliamentarism, republicanism and federalism are. When, however, a communist commits an act that violates an existing law--rebellion, insurrection, sedition--then, the commission of the act is punishable. But that is because of the act, not because of his status as a believer in communism.

It is the same thing with the anti-terrorism law.

Religious Representation in the Armed Forces

No, this isn't a 'women/gays in the military' debate with a twist. This isn't about muslim soldiers in the army, or buddhist, or jewish, or whatever. It goes without saying that in first world liberal democracies, religion doesn't matter in signing up for the army. The issue in question here is the presence of chaplains.

The British Armed Forces recently appointed Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh Chaplains as part of the miltary.

The status quo for most first world military is (at least as far as I know) is to have a Christian/Catholic Chaplain.

Possible questions would be, should we even have chaplains in the military in the first place?
If so, should we have different chaplains according to the demographics of soldiers in the military?

Second question is kind of one-sided. You can worm yourself out of it, but it's going to be sneaky, and unfair.

Internet matter

A series of articles in the Observer about Internet issues. Simple and direct, they're a good way to understand what exactly is happening in the Internet without necessarily getting bogged down by the technical aspect of it.

• The implications of web services
  
• The whole .XXX debacle (yes, this is the ICANN brouhaha)
  
• What sets blogging apart from 'real' journalism
  
• WHY blogging is beating 'real' journalism
  
• The bell curve and its absence in the Internet
  

True enough, since people absolutely HATE Internet debates, there probably won't be as much Internet debates where you're going to need this. But hey, they're fun to read.