| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Help With Debate Topics | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 18 2006, 09:31 PM (182 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 18 2006, 09:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I mentioned in the thread on the Bush Admininstration withholding climate information that I am teaching a class this summer on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I also mentioned that it is my intent to raise the issue of whether environmental regulations simply benefit the upper middle and upper classes and also whether they are used to discriminate against the urban poor. One of the issues I have this summer is that I am teaching two back-to-back classes -- one on public finance and this one on CEQA, each 2 hours long, twice a week, with only a 10 minute break in between. Both lend themselves to intense lecturing since both are really basics classes -- intended to provide basic information to the students. However, over 50% of the students are taking both classes. If I primarily lecture in both, I am going to lose them -- 4 hours of lecture, even if on 2 topics, just won't keep them awake and focused enough. They are evening classes 6-8PM and 8-10 PM. It is the second class I am concerned about, which is the CEQA class. I have been stumped as to how to make the second class more interactive and still get the information acrosss. I have not wanted to just have them make powerpoint presentations (they do that a lot) and I really am not too keen on asking each of them to write an indepth term paper, because that would fail to break up the class. As I have thought about what I said in the other thread, I had the bright idea of having debates. I will have about 36 students. So, if I have three on each side of an issue, I have six students per debate and then need six topics. Recognizing the major resource all of you damned conservatives are with your knee jerk opposition to anything environmental ( ) I figure you are a good resource for debate topics.I have come up with three so far: 1. RESOLVED: THE CURRENT STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT ARE TOO COSTLY FOR THE ECONOMY 2. RESOLVED: THE CURRENT STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT CAUSE HOUSING DESCRIMINATION AGAINST VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 3. RESOLVED: THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PLACES AN UNWARRANTED PRIORITY ON ENDANGERED SPECIES TO THE DETRIMENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY or RESOLVED: THE PROCEDURE FOR LISTING A SPECIES AS ENDANGERED IS BASED ON INADEQUATE SCIENCE. So, all of you anti-environmentalists here -- I need three more debate topics. Or, maybe more if the ones I have come up with are no good. What topics do you think would be worthwhile for the students to engage? (They need to be enviromentally based) |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2006, 09:39 PM Post #2 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't think there's any one here who is an anti-environmentalist... |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 18 2006, 09:45 PM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
All right then, let's say those who are opposed to our current environmental policies and laws as they are being enforced. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 18 2006, 09:52 PM Post #4 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
OK, I've come up with two more: 1. RESOLVED: CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE EASED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENERGY SOURCES 2. RESOLVED: CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS MAKE THE UNITED STATES NON-COMPETITIVE IN THE GLOBAL MARKET. or RESOLVED: CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS MAKE CALIFORNIA NON-COMPETITIVE COMPARED TO OTHER STATES AND COUNTRIES. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jun 18 2006, 10:02 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Interesting topic, Rick. Can't help you with your particular subject, as I don't know California's situation, but I would think there is lots of room for debate. We have a situation here, with the building of a new highway in anticipation of the 2010 Olympics, and it is causing much fuss between environmentalists, and supporters of the event. And there are a lot of us, (myself included) caught in between. Is the loss of a particular area (in this case, an area of many beautiful, old, Arbutus), more important than a safer highway to a ski resort? It's a dangerous road, lots of fatal accidents, and not likely to change. The people protesting are mostly those who live in the vacinity, in million dollar houses, and don't want their view messed with. And surely some beautiful old Arbutus trees were sacrificed for their lots. But where do you draw the line? What's more important? Sorry, not helping you I realise, but your post made me think of this. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 18 2006, 10:06 PM Post #6 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
More help than you may know, Sue. How about: RESOLVED: ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO STOP REGIONALLY NEEDED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 19 2006, 09:25 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
One former Rhodes scholar I knew that taught a night class in Civil War history fired a blank-filled Navy Colt across the classroom one particularly dreadful evening. Seemed to keep the students awake.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 19 2006, 09:44 AM Post #8 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
It's all in the wordage. Nobody who's pro-choice considers themselves as pro-murder (I know, I know, extreme example, hope nobody takes that too seriously). There's preservationists who think we should just leave Mother Nature alone as much as physically possible, the conservationists, which think we need to be conservative with what we use, and the utilitarianists who think the land is for us, so why not use all that we can. Each one of those has its own positive and negative ramifications. But if you favor the advancement of society regardless of the environmental impact, I'd say you're definitely in this boat. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jun 19 2006, 11:11 AM Post #9 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm not sure it kept them awake unless he laid on the desk when he started his lecture. I do suppose it might have suddenly awakened one or more students. I have a great deal of respect for students that successfully pursue education via the night school route. It's a long, hard row to hoe compared to being a full-time student. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 19 2006, 12:04 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
What kept them awake was the realization that he might do it again.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |



) I figure you are a good resource for debate topics.





4:49 PM Jul 10