2005-2006 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE TOPIC

Civil Liberties

Home Page

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

Following are the final results for the 2005-2006 national high school debate topic balloting. Ballots were first sent to states, the District of Columbia, the National Forensic League and the National Catholic Forensic League last August. After a period of discussion of the two final topic areas, states conducted balloting in December and January. Results were sent to NFHS headquarters by January 5, 2005.

Civil Liberties was chosen with 18 of the 35 votes cast for the topic. Following is a breakdown of how the states voted, as well as NCFL and NFL.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

The 2005 Topic Selection Meeting will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 5-7. Specific information regarding lodging, travel arrangements and daily schedules will be sent to your office at a later date. You may also check our Web site at: http://www.nfhs.org/sdta.htm

arh

2005-2006 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE TOPIC

Civil Liberties

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

Following the devastation of 9/11, the United States government took action on many fronts. Immediately after the war in Afghanistan, a camp was set up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to house “detainees” captured by the military. These detainees were identified as terrorists, but held without formal charges. The lack of clarity in how to handle suspected terrorists was addressed in part by “The USA PATRIOT Act,” legislation which gave broad power to the government to detain individuals suspected of terrorist activities, and to hold those individuals without access to attorney or recourse to the American court system. Upon passage of the PATRIOT Act, some members of Congress expressed concern the act could threaten civil liberties. Civil rights groups argue that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional and jeopardizes civil liberties in a number of ways, including the ability to conduct searches without search warrants or probable cause, and the ability to detain individuals without charges. These recent events make it important for students to discuss the various merits of current laws and practices aimed at detaining and searching individuals. Potential affirmatives include: setting criteria for detention of suspected terrorists, establishing conditions under which those individuals are held, including assuring that the Geneva Convention is in place, assuring court review at different levels, assuring right to appeal at different levels, setting criteria for search and seizure, setting review of search and seizure, reestablishing criteria for probable cause, setting criteria for searches of books, library usage, wire taps, body searches and financial searches. Additional affirmatives include access to lawyers, rights to hearings, etc. Negative positions include discussions of which federal body should be engaged in the reforms, including Supreme Court vs. the Executive; whether changes may increase the chance of terrorism, the effect on Presidential popularity and the ability to pass other related (and unrelated) legislation, whether the government should be in the business of detaining individuals in the first place without charge (for example, if the affirmative sets criteria, the negative could simply ban detention), critical arguments include discussion of international relations and rights versus security. Additional disadvantages include court activism, deterrence, hegemony, and hollow hope.