However, in 2008 this all changed as explained in this Boston Globe Article

Tucked into the Wall Street bailout bill was a breakthrough for the estimated 113 million Americans suffering from mental illness – a provision making it illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate against patients suffering from psychological or behavioral disorders.

The mental parity law, one of many amendments included in the legislation to broaden legislative support for the bailout package, requires health insurance companies to charge the same deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket expenses for mental health treatments as for all other illnesses.

This would be a good article to cut for generic evidence in case anyone is running an old case on Mental Health Parity. Especially be thinking of this if all the evidence the debater is reading comes from before 2008!

Share on Facebook

But for many of our troops and their families, the war doesn’t end when they come home. Too many suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – the signature injuries of today’s wars – and too few receive proper screening or care. We’re changing that. We’re directing significant resources to treatment, hiring more mental health professionals, and making major investments in awareness, outreach, and suicide prevention. And we’re making it easier for a vet with PTSD to get the benefits he or she needs.

Watch the whole video:

Share on Facebook

I’d like to take this opportunity to lay out the details of the yearlong sweeps, for the purpose of either confirming them or adjusting them before our first tournament. While everyone is more than welcome to add their $.02, only the members of the Executive Committee (currently Myself, Michael Miller, Robert Maxwell, David Saulet, Danny Cantrell) get an official vote.

I will lay out the Yearlong Sweeps as it existed last year, and then I’m thinking in the next week or so we’ll call a vote via e-mail of those committee members.

There are three divisions of awards. As of last year, novice and senior distinctions are not made because coaches are expected to put competitors in their correct division, making the competition theoretically equal for everyone. The argument is that enough tournaments disallow very experienced debaters to enter Novice divisions to make coach abuse (putting senior level debaters into novice) negligible.

The first division is the Lincoln Division, which goes to the school with the highest percentage of wins. This one is the toughest to describe. Prelims are simple in that each competitor simply has their wins divided by the number of prelim wins. For example, a debater that goes 1-3 at a four prelim tournament would have a 25% winning percentage for the Lincoln Division. Final rounds become more complicated. In order to prevent punishing debaters for losing percentage points for breaking, all final rounds in which a debate competes are assumed to be 3-0 wins. If the debater does not progress beyond the first elimination round, only the initial 3-0 round is tabulated. For example, Debater A went 2-2 in prelims, and did not break. Debater B went 3-1 in prelims and lost according to all three judges in the first elim round. Debater C went 3-1 in prelims and won on a 2-1 in the first prelim, but lost 0-3 in the second prelim. According to the current tabulation system, A would get a 50% (2 wins, 4 rounds), B would get an 86% (6 wins, 7 rounds), and C would get 90% (9 wins, 10 rounds). To illustrate why this system was used, if we went strictly by wins and losses on every ballot, A would still get 50%, B would get 43% (3 wins, 7 ballots), and C would get 50% (5 wins, 10 ballots). As you can see, that system would sometimes lower someone’s percentage for breaking. The current system argues that prelim losses are important, but debaters are rewarded for proceeding to the next elim round by a higher win percentage. This division is designed to reward smaller teams who have more quality debaters.

The second division is the Douglas Division, which describes the number of adjusted wins. This is similar to the above calculation, but ignores the number of rounds involved. Every team simply gets a win for every prelim win, and 3 wins for each appearence in an elim round. This division is designed to reward larger teams who choose to support the activity with larger squads and participation.

The third division is similar to the Lincoln division, but for individual debaters as opposed to teams. The third division awards the SoCal-LD Debater of the Year award.

All three divisions are restricted by participation, and to be eligible a team or competitor must compete at a minimum of 33% of possible tournaments. Recall that only tournaments that take place in Southern California are tabulated, though schools from outside Southern California are tabulated. Last year, no school from outside the region went to the requisite 33% of tournaments (which turned out to be a minimum of three).

Last year, I tabulated the results. I felt comfortable including my own school in the award lists, since the data from which the results were drawn are publically accessible and transparent. I certainly don’t have to do the tabulation, but am willing to do it again. It really wasn’t too hard, once I set up the spread sheet to produce the proper document I posted at various intervals last year.

So, there it is. Can we make this better?

Share on Facebook

Well…. any negative debater who doesn’t bring up Szasz… in every debate…. may be giving up a trump card on this topic. While I’ve only so far brushed upon the topic it seems pretty persuasive that the entire concept of “mental illness” is a fiction to deem some behavior inappropriate in society. It may be very hard to find an affirmative that in some way does not link to Thomas Szasz’s argument.

Although I wonder if cases which do not lead to involuntary lockup would be immune from the main line of attack – that seems to be his principal complaint.

His “Manifesto” from 1998 is a good introduction:

“Myth of mental illness.” Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word “disease” denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

The site has tremendous resources available to understand the argument in more detail. I especially found the “DebatesDebates” interesting.

This comment from Tiger has a great resource (large PDF) from CATO to introduce you to his central argument.

Here is a quick introduction and some good questions that will probably come up in CX from the man himself:

As I’ve said before – I do not think this can only be brought up in a debate framed as a kritik of the affirmative debater. I think it could go a long way on solvency – if the “harm” is merely a rhetorical fiction then the policy will go no where to solve the harm.

Now that I think of it I may have stumbled upon the one case that will not link to Szasz – a Szasz affirmative – substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill by getting rid of all mental health services to the chronically mentally ill! That may be a bit extreme.

Whatever you do – please make sure to have some answers to Szasz frontlined and ready to go for your affirmative rounds. I’d be surprised if it didn’t come up 99% of the rounds this year.

While each case would require different answers anyone have any suggestions for affirmative debaters to avoid losing to Szasz every round?

Share on Facebook

The LD Coop evidence has been released by John Boyer for general consumption. You can download the full set at this link: http://www.net-benefits.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=439&d=1283189995

I attended the camp, so I’ll just give a little overview of the evidence. But first, a word of caution.

This evidence is released by John Boyer and the camp so that the debate community can see what we have been doing. Under no circumstances should this evidence be used as a substitute for original research. If you use camp files for the entire year, well, frankly, you’re not going to succeed competitively. Why? Well, first of all, you’ll have a hard time beating me, because I have read every last card in the file and can easily clobber you with your own evidence. Second, the best debaters will be cutting things that these files aren’t going to have responses to. And third, the best way to become acquainted with your own evidence is to cut it yourself. If you’re just reading files that other people handed to you, you’re not going to understand the evidence and you’re not going to know how to use it in a manner that maximizes their utility.

You should use this evidence only to supplement what you have already done, but even then, not before you have extensively read through and highlighted it. And I will promise you this – if I catch anyone reading exclusively camp evidence after the first few tournaments of the year, my first response in a round will be to call you out on it. Research is not particularly hard. Try some.

Without further ado:

IMD Aff – the IMD (Institutions for Mental Diseases) exclusion prevents Medicaid payments from being used for treatment at these facilities. The plan text would remove this exclusion. The prisons advantage basically says that shoving the mentally ill into prisons instead of mental facilities is bad. The second advantage is dehumanization of the mentally ill due to prison/homelessness, which is sort of self-explanatory. Overall it’s a solid aff.

Natives Aff - it’s not a big secret that Native Americans receive substandard services in virtually every facet of living. Mental health is no exception. This aff would attempt to remedy this by providing cultural competency training to mental health workers and requiring collaboration between Indian Health Services and communities on methods of treatment. There are a couple impacts in the file. While it’s a good start, and the aff  has a lot of potential, I think there are better solvency mechanisms available. I also question whether this is topical: providing cultural competency training seems like it’s effects T at best.

Rural Telemetry Aff – this would expand mental healthcare to underserved rural populations by increasing access to telemedicine. The advantages are pretty straight up, just depression/suicide and poverty. It’s a fairly solid aff, although the impacts are a bit nebulous. The main problem in my mind is, again, topicality, because the plan text simply provides material infrastructure and makes no mention of any actual mental health services.

PTSD Aff – I ran a version of this at the camp tournament. The aff essentially removes the requirement that veterans obtain a diagnosis of/treatment for PTSD from Department of Veteran Affairs. Allowing private diagnoses would expand the number of veterans who receive treatment. There’s a couple of advantages included, although I think that they can be greatly expanded. A few notes about this aff. First, it’s pretty topical, and I didn’t lose any rounds on T with this at camp. Second, it’s awesome because it links to nothing. States CP? The VA is pretty much an exclusive federal entity. Same goes for federalism disad. This doesn’t link to politics, either – the GOP won’t touch VA benefits with a ten foot pole, for obvious reasons. It’s a very solid aff overall.

States Counterplan – that’s right, it’s back. Good luck beating states spending disads though, they’re more potent in this climate now more than ever.

Federalism Disad – argues that expanded federal control over mental health services hurts federalism. Personally federalism has been dead for years, but it’s a debate mainstay so feel free to run it.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Neg – this isn’t responsive to anything specific in the file. It’s just a generic toolbox you can use to attack cases which provide mental health treatments that deviate from scientific standards.

Community-Based Care Counterplan – basically transfers the mental  health service in question from the federal government to community care clinics. It might be useful in a limited number of instances, but from my experience at camp this was an extremely weak argument.

Funding File – generic stuff involving funding.

Generic Negative Evidence – exactly what it sounds like.

Mental Illness Myth Kritik – ah, here we go. This is also known as the Szasz K. For the uninitiated, Szasz argues that mental illess is not an actual biological disease, i.e. there is nothing “wrong” with the mentally ill apart from the labels we apply to them. Rather, the concept of mental illness is a social construction. If you’re interested in reading this, my advice would be to skip this and go straight to the original source – Szasz himself – and read his stuff. You’ll get a much more thorough understanding of his work that way. But if you do decide to read this file, it needs a serious, serious overhaul to be viable in tournament competition. I had to completely rewrite the 1NC shell to have any success with this argument at camp. And it is a very potent argument – but only if read correctly.

State Spending Disad – this was something that I cut, so you know right away that it’s quality . It’s basically a disad to the states CP, but it can also be used as a disad to plans that force states to provide funding for services in some manner. (You’ll need specific link evidence). Basically, states are cutting back on mental health services now to cover up budget deficits, but the plan/counterplan forces new spending, which forces new borrowing. That causes states to default on their debt, causing economic havoc.

Procedurals – frankly, they’re kind of weak and underdeveloped. My advice would be to avoid them entirely and cut your own.

Have any questions? Just ask in the comments and I’ll try my best to answer them.

Share on Facebook

I came across this list of really good resources from the Consensus Project. A few of their really good articles:

1. Mental Health Courts: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice
2. The Advocacy Handbook: A Guide to Implementing Recommendations of the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project
3. The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People With Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse

You can view the entire list here. Good luck with case ideas! And of course, remember, that you will also be negative, so start thinking of negative strategies against these cases even if they are not your cup of tea.

Share on Facebook

Good Introduction card

More cases of severe mental illness are being reported among college students than a decade ago, as more young people with mental health issues tackle a post-secondary education and are open to getting help when they need it, a new U.S. study shows

Possible harm?

The use of prescription medications by students to treat psychiatric illness has also risen significantly over the past decade, the research team noted.

Your thoughts?

Share on Facebook

First, I think it is important to consider the role of the judge within the debate round. He or she determines who wins the round, obviously. But there’s more to it than that, I think. Every judge has his or her preferences and worldviews regarding debate. Good debaters will adapt the content of the round to match those worldviews. Like I was telling Danny the other day, if I happen to have the pleasure of debating in front of him some day, I will deliver a persuasive, rational speech advocating policy arguments that appeals to his ideal conceptualization of debate, happily and without complaint. But in front of a judge like, say, Zach Moss, I will delight in breaking out Foucault and ranting about biopower at 300 wpm. (And Zach, if you’re reading this, I promise to be clear! I promise!)

One of the common themes I noticed was the comparison of the debate judge to a member of a trial jury. But I’m not certain I like this comparison. I prefer to compare debate judges to actual law judges, practicing attorneys who are trained in their craft. They have distinct legal views, just like debate judges have debate views, and they have mastered a field that is inherently specialized. Juries, on the other hand, do not have opinions. They are semi-docile bodies who are told to evaluate facts and interpret them to the best of their ability.

Do judges cast votes? Not in jury trials, usually. But then again, when was the last time the U.S. Supreme Court handed instructions to a jury? The highest echelons of law are presided over by trained minds. And yes, Supreme Court justices do vote, and when they rule, it has ramifications everywhere.

Now, let us consider an interesting historical precedent.

Up until a few decades ago, California used to allow lay persons who were not licensed attorneys to  preside over criminal trials. These lay members were typically elected by the general populace, and then assigned to what were known as the justice courts. Under this system, individuals with no experience in law and no formal training within the legal system were effectively permitted to hand out prison sentences. Just imagine taking a random juror off of a case and assigning them to preside over the trial – objection, your honor!

Fascinatingly, this system was actually used for many decades. But in Gordon v. Justice Court (1974), the California Supreme Court ruled that lay persons were not, in fact, qualified to adjudicate such trials. Burke notes in the majority opinion:

The practice of allowing a layman to be a judge in a criminal proceeding must be scrutinized in the light of modern standards and conditions. There has been a vast increase in the number of attorneys in all areas of the state…the increased complexity of criminal law and criminal procedure has greatly enhanced the probability that a layman will be unable to deal effectively with the complexities inherent in a criminal trial…

It is incongruous today for prosecutors and defense attorneys, who must be licensed attorneys, to perform advocacy roles before a judge who does not have a similar background. The [non-attorney] judge is placed in a position of either drawing upon his own experience (which may be limited) or relying upon the position taken by the prosecutor or defense attorney.

Furthermore, the use of lay judges was ruled unconstitutional in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. For the same reason that persons charged with crimes must be assigned qualified lawyers to defend them, jury trials must be conducted in front of a qualified judge; i.e. an attorney who is a member of the Bar. This logic was laid out in the landmark decision Powell v. Alabama (and later reaffirmed in Gideon v. Wainwright). Justice Sutherland writes:

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

Why does this matter?

Debate is by nature a specialized event, with its own procedures, theory, and jargon, all requiring a comprehensive understanding of debate. Is it theoretically possible to use lay judges? Yes. But as the justice courts demonstrated, this was not necessarily the fairest or most constructive manner of conducting proceedings. Would you want, for instance, a “lay judge” who does not flow or understand debate specialization determining who breaks at the national championship? No more so than we would want a “lay judge” who does not understand legal theory sentencing people to hefty prison terms. Yet while the latter has been (thankfully) banished, the former continues to occur.

So, with all that in mind, what determines a sufficient level of qualification? At what point do we draw the line between “lay” and “qualified?” After all, we don’t have a Bar exam that tests this stuff. Here are my thoughts.

I would posit that it is insufficient for a judge to have read or even memorized the rules. A qualified judge must understand what those rules actually mean in practice. This sort of understanding can be acquired first and foremost through knowledge and firsthand experience, i.e. through participation in debate.

The caveat, of course, is that not all debate formats are alike. Pure policy debate requires the highest degree of judge qualification because it has the highest degree of complexity. High school public forum requires the lowest degree of judge qualification because there is virtually no specialization, and intentionally so; members of the general public thus form the majority of the judging pool for that event.

Where does NFA-LD fall? This is interesting because LD is supposed to be a permutation of policy debate and IEs, even if it seldom works out that way in practice.

Let’s consider some examples. Is someone who is experienced in judging IEs, and has a masters in communication, qualified if they don’t understand how the stock issues work? As shocking as this might sound, I would have to say no. I would not want someone who does not understand what the stock issues are and how they function sitting in the back of the room under any circumstances.

Another example: is someone who did IEs exclusively in college, never debated, but coaches LD, has learned to flow, and understands the rules and a small amount of theory qualified? The answer here is a firm yes. This coach will probably hate speed. He or she may give some weight to communicative style in his or her decision. But while this may or may not be the ideal judge for a debater like me, he or she is definitely a qualified judge.

That distinction is very important. We all have our ideal judge. This is what MPJ facilitates (the merits of which I may or may not address at some future time). But consider this: even if I absolutely despise a particular judge’s argumentative and stylistic preferences, if he or she has met the minimum conditions I laid out, then they are very much qualified to judge debate, and I will not complain if he or she is placed in the back of the room. I consider it my responsibility to prepare for every qualified judge – and that includes those whose debate worldviews do not align with mine. Hence, my advice about keeping multiple sets of evidence for the variety of judging styles you are likely to see at every tournament.

I do not consider it a fair burden on a debater to prepare for an unqualified judge. Like members of a jury, their worldviews regarding debate are usually underdeveloped. Too often these rounds devolve into a contest to see who can talk the prettiest, with little (if any) regard given to matters of substance. Can these debates occur as such? Yes, and they often do. Does that make them good debates or fair debates? Just as in instances where lay members served as trial judges, the answer is no.

Rock on, and bring the ruckus.

- Nick

Share on Facebook

According to 44USC1333, the Library of Congress is responsible for preparing compilations of pertinent excerpts, bibliographical references, and other appropriate materials relating to the annual [high school debate] topic. The compilation is then printed as a Senate document and disseminated by GPO. The following is a listing of the compliations that have been disseminated since 1996.
Source

They have the link still for the 2002-2003 topic background available here (warning – large pdf).

Now, how can we get this for NFA…

Share on Facebook

Be it resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill.

For me, this can break down to:

1. Be it resolved:
2. the United States Federal Government
3. should
4. substantially reform
5. the provision of
6. mental health services
7. to the
8. chronically mentally ill

That’s 8 key definitions that topicality debates may or may not revolve around this year. Here are some initial thoughts on each part.
Be it resolved:

Not much of an issue to me – basically just requires the affirmative to defend the rest of the resolution. You could imagine this as a different phrase “Maybe:” and the burden on the affirmative would be much less.

the United States Federal Government

Policies should have the USFG as the actor. This of course brings back the States Counterplan – and with the Medicare (warning – large PDF) issue it’ll be an interesting debate. It does seem from some of my initial research this subject area functions similar to last year – the Federal Government gives many states money to implement policies. I think this topic will follow last year’s topic where you want to find an area that the Federal Government clearly has an involvement and reform that part of mental health services – perhaps the military?

Medicare, however, is different from Medicaid. For

example, Medicaid is:

a state administered program and each state sets its own guidelines regarding eligibility and services. Read more about your state Medicaid program. (See Related Links inside CMS at the bottom of the page.)

Source (warning, large PDF) p. 18

So we need to be careful what we’re talking about when reforming and whose program it is! The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has lots more information.

should

Requires us to examine the world of what should happen not necessarily what will happen. For more see my post on fiat.

substantially reform

Same wording as last year’s topic so pull out all those topicality backfiles on what it means to substantially reform something. For me, this requires a big change from the status quo – minor changes to this or that don’t pass muster. After the 1AC I always want the impression from the aff’s case that wow – they are really reforming the system.

the provision of

Provision means providing. The FreeDictionary online defines provision as:

pro·vi·sion (pr-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of supplying or fitting out.
2. Something provided.
3. A preparatory action or measure.
4. provisions A stock of necessary supplies, especially food.
5. A stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement.
tr.v. pro·vi·sioned, pro·vi·sion·ing, pro·vi·sions
To supply with provisions.

So in context of the resolution it’s providing people with Mental Health Services. So we’re not talking about abstract policy but the actual delivery of services to people. This may have implications for cases that revolve around funding – much like last year.

mental health services

The dictionary provided by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration from the US Dept of HHS defines mental health as:

How a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations. Mental health is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives; evaluate their challenges and problems; and explore choices. This includes handling stress, relating to other people, and making decisions.

Service should then probably mean anything that effects Mental Health – like medicine, treatment, etc… Does anyone have a good definition of the whole term?

to the

Again, in context with the other words in the resolution, it seems clear that the policy reform must center on what services people actually receive. This, of course, brings up the financial debate we had last year on the transportation topic. One implication of my initial reading would be that funding cases would not be topical since they are not the provision of services to the “chronically mentally ill” but instead are effects topical. So if the only thing your case does is increase funding for a program than that would not change mental health services to the chronically mentally ill since it would only change the dollar amount allocated to the services. The treatment would stay the same and so your plan would be non-topical.

I’m not sure if I’m totally convinced on that point – your ideas? I have to admit, writing this post has gotten me more confused – good thing tournaments don’t start for awhile!

Here are some thoughts of my initial reaction to the topic – have any of you come up with different definitions in your research? Please post your thoughts!

Share on Facebook