Proof that you can't change Republicans' minds
Last night some members of the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team squared off with the Princeton Debate Society at the University Club on 54th St. The debate was structured like a modified APDA round with Columbia advocating, Princeton opposing. The resolution? That the United States has the responsibility to provide universal healthcare for all its citizens.
The audience was given the power to vote on the outcome of the round. The audience consisted of Ivy League grads, many of them Princeton alums, anywhere between the age of 40 and 80, mostly towards the latter half. The overwhelming majority of them were white. Overall, a very, very Republican crowd.
I'm not in an impartial position to make a judgment on the outcome of the round because A.) the Columbia debaters are my friends and B.) I think the private sector is directly and indirectly responsible for most, if not all, of America's healthcare problems. BUT I will say that I think Princeton used a really sleazy tactic of proposing not one, not two, but THREE countercases which, in a round about a topic that is as nuanced as healthcare, and in front of a crowd where the debaters had to slow themselves down in order for the audience to actually comprehend the words they were saying, put Columbia in the position of having to defend more ground and provide more offense than was possible in the amount of time given and in the structure of the round, especially with the absence of rebuttal speeches, AND giving the opposition, who has a smaller burden in every round no matter what, the advantage of recency in delivering the final speech. (That sentence was very long... but I believe it was grammatically correct.)
When the debate concluded and the moderator opened up the floor to questions from the audience, I was glad to see that at least three or four people in the crowd believed in universal provision, since most of the contentious questions were addressed towards the Princeton team. Then one guy stood up and asked a non-question about Castro, thinking he was so clever by "hinting" that the Columbia side was advocating socialism without actually saying the word. He also tried to make me explain which side would have won in a normal round, so I told him Columbia won. I don't know which way he voted.
Princeton won. No surprise there. It didn't matter how good Columbia's case was, or how bad all of Princeton's counter-cases were, or that Princeton didn't defend a single one of their counter-cases after proposing them. I wasn't flowing so I don't know who won on the flow, but overall I think Columbia made more compelling moral and economic arguments, and their entire notion of negative moral externalities (if a smoker knows that health insurance will pay for his lung cancer in the future, that's all the more reason to smoke) was demolished by the simple statement that individuals generally DON'T want to die. Why else would there be such a huge market for products that help smokers quit? And for weight-loss products, since obesity is another life-threatening condition that universal coverage would supposedly encourage?
Anyway. It all just goes to show that you can't convince Republicans, no matter how right you are.
The audience was given the power to vote on the outcome of the round. The audience consisted of Ivy League grads, many of them Princeton alums, anywhere between the age of 40 and 80, mostly towards the latter half. The overwhelming majority of them were white. Overall, a very, very Republican crowd.
I'm not in an impartial position to make a judgment on the outcome of the round because A.) the Columbia debaters are my friends and B.) I think the private sector is directly and indirectly responsible for most, if not all, of America's healthcare problems. BUT I will say that I think Princeton used a really sleazy tactic of proposing not one, not two, but THREE countercases which, in a round about a topic that is as nuanced as healthcare, and in front of a crowd where the debaters had to slow themselves down in order for the audience to actually comprehend the words they were saying, put Columbia in the position of having to defend more ground and provide more offense than was possible in the amount of time given and in the structure of the round, especially with the absence of rebuttal speeches, AND giving the opposition, who has a smaller burden in every round no matter what, the advantage of recency in delivering the final speech. (That sentence was very long... but I believe it was grammatically correct.)
When the debate concluded and the moderator opened up the floor to questions from the audience, I was glad to see that at least three or four people in the crowd believed in universal provision, since most of the contentious questions were addressed towards the Princeton team. Then one guy stood up and asked a non-question about Castro, thinking he was so clever by "hinting" that the Columbia side was advocating socialism without actually saying the word. He also tried to make me explain which side would have won in a normal round, so I told him Columbia won. I don't know which way he voted.
Princeton won. No surprise there. It didn't matter how good Columbia's case was, or how bad all of Princeton's counter-cases were, or that Princeton didn't defend a single one of their counter-cases after proposing them. I wasn't flowing so I don't know who won on the flow, but overall I think Columbia made more compelling moral and economic arguments, and their entire notion of negative moral externalities (if a smoker knows that health insurance will pay for his lung cancer in the future, that's all the more reason to smoke) was demolished by the simple statement that individuals generally DON'T want to die. Why else would there be such a huge market for products that help smokers quit? And for weight-loss products, since obesity is another life-threatening condition that universal coverage would supposedly encourage?
Anyway. It all just goes to show that you can't convince Republicans, no matter how right you are.