Abortion, Censorship, and the LD Resolution

Updated 6/13/22

Over a month ago, I was watching the final round of LD at a major tournament. The student on the negative side said that the framers of this year's topic did not intend any embryo based applications to be part of this year's debate. His justification was that the debate committee had said they did not intend for any abortion (or related) applications to be run under this year’s resolution. He cited the September StoaByte which said, “When researching the resolution, debaters have the potential to touch on sensitive issues. But the Debate Committee believes LD offers an excellent opportunity for students to debate the issues constructively, and subjects like abortion will not be a part of the debate.” (1) Thus, any applications that involve embryo research (like the 14-day rule, chrimeras, GMO twins, etc.) are not permitted because the debate committee has ruled them out.

I had the opportunity to present this topic to the other committee members, and members of the board at the Stoa Academy last summer where I discussed the types of applications that I anticipated to be run under this year's topic. Two of the primary applications I used were the 14-day rule, and CRISPR technology, as they are among the most popular applications that show the resolution’s controversy. You can imagine my astonishment when I was told in that final round that the 14-day rule and other embryo applications were never intended to be part of this year’s topic. I thought this was particularly bad because we actually intended the exact opposite of what the speaker was claiming.

Unfortunately, this round represents a broader strategy that I have seen this season. Where, instead of arguing against the application, the LDer says that the aff's application was intended to be censored by the debate committee and thus he doesn't have to answer it. To be clear, that claim couldn't be further from the truth. Of course we did, and still do, intend arguments and applications involving embryonic research to be part of this year’s topic. As I’ll explain below, there are plenty of good counter responses, none of which require censorship.

Even in the original article, we know that censorship on embryonic applications is not what was intended. This is why it says earlier in the article, “Work with your students to sort through subjects like transhumanism, germline gene editing, chimera, and stem cells. These topics may be initially confusing and could ignite a discussion about ethical conflict.” (1) Three out of four of these areas directly involve embryonic research. Meaning, we absolutely intended embryo based applications to be run.

In fact, the debate committee has sought on multiple occasions to correct this claim in subsequent StoaBytes by clarifying, “Notice: Any articles published in the StoaByte from the Debate Committee are intended for general explanation, encouragement of ideas, and reasoning on a given topic. They are not intended to create debate rules or set parameters for your debate rounds.” We even took the unprecedented stance to go back to the September StoaByte and remove the sentence (about abortion) that the student was using to justify this censorship. In other words, we’ve gone to great lengths to repudiate his claim. Now, with this blog, I hope to remove all doubt and provide a more legitimate strategy.

Besides the fact that the debate committee has already removed the possibility of using the blog as a justification for censorship, here are my top five reasons to reject the “its too moral” censorship.

1. Blogs Are Not The Best Evidence

Under Stoa rules, blogs can be used as evidence (under Stoa’s Evidence Standards II), but they are merely an opinion, have no editorial process, and can be written by anyone regardless of their credentials. (3) Since blogs fail to meet evidence standards, they cannot create a rule that justifies censorship. Such claims are completely baseless.

2. Embryos without Abortion

It's entirely possible to run applications about embryonic research without it leading to the death of the embryo or fetus. For example, in China they have created genetically modified twins who are still alive to this day. Ben Carson has done numerous experiments and even medical operations on children still in their mother’s womb. In fact, the entire designer baby market is about modifying the embryo that they plan to carry to term and give birth. To suggest that embryonic research and abortion are synonymous is empirically denied.

3. No End to the Censorship

If embryo research can be censored because its considered too moral or too linked to the destruction of life, then there really is no end to what arguments we would need to censor. If the standard for censorship is undermining human dignity or the destruction of life, then there is virtually no application the affirmative side can run that clearly shows the conflict of this resolution. Many applications, including the Tuskegee Study, plutonium experiments, and vaccine experiments, all undermine human dignity and destroy the lives of innocent people. Under censorship logic, these applications must be removed as well. Why would you only censor applications involving embryos, and yet still allow similar examples involving adults? That makes no sense whatsoever. Therein lies the problem with “it's too moral” censorship. There is no end to the things that could be censored.

4. Counter Attitudinal Advocacy

Perhaps you're thinking, “Griffith, I don't want my child arguing against the 14-day rule, embryonic research, designer babies or any of those things…” I would say yes you do. You do, if you want to prepare your children for the real world and to be good thinkers. Censoring applications is antithetical to debate because it circumvents the critical thinking process. If we want our students to be well prepared for apologetics and fulfill the 1st Peter 3:15 mandate, to always be prepared to have an answer, we must challenge them to think critically and strategically so that they are well equipped to answer the most difficult questions.

This process is known as counter attitudinal advocacy, or in layman's terms, to be a devil's advocate. The idea is to argue against the side you actually agree with for the purposes of understanding your opponents arguments, interrogating the strength of your claims, and improving your ability to answer the most difficult objections. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and C.S. Lewis were famous for presenting objections to the Christian faith, answering those questions, and finally drawing concrete conclusions. The ability to think counter attitudinally and do so with grace and humility is among the highest objectives for every Stoa debater.

5. Failing the Mission of Stoa

Where is the academic value in refusing to consider opposing arguments to our personal beliefs? How does that better prepare us for the real world? It doesn't. In fact, it's antithetical to academic debate, the mission of Stoa, and the purpose of Lincoln Douglas debate which states “A Lincoln Douglas debate examines competing value systems to answer big questions. The purpose of Lincoln Douglas value debate is to instill in Christian home school students the skills of presentation, critical thinking, research, and value analysis.” (2) This very training is neglected when we seek to censor applications because they're supposedly “too moral.” Thus, censorship is the ultimate rejection of the mission of Stoa.

Thats not to say that you have to argue that genocide is good, or certain people deserve to be dehumanized, or that killing innocent victims is somehow needed. No. I'm not suggesting that morally repugnant arguments need to be made. I’m as pro-life as any judge you’ll find out there, and I will never suggest that your students should go pro-choice. What I will tell them to do though, is be more strategic. To point out things like about how it's through advancement that we’re able to save unborn children, correct genetic defects, provide alternatives to embryonic experiments, and save the lives of those born prematurely. In other words, if saving unborn life is the goal, there are plenty of valid arguments to suggest advancement is the best tool to do so.

Whatever you do, don’t throw your pen in the air like you just don't care, wave your hands side to side…No! It's about thinking strategically and outflanking your opponent.

Happy Debating!

Coach Griffith is the director of the National Institute for Homeschool Debate. He will be leading two different NITOC bootcamps in May, for more information visit NITOC Bootcamps 2022, NIHD also hosts the nation's biggest and best speech and debate camp which will be returning for the 15th year. Sign up now at 15th Annual National Institute for Homeschool Debate

Guest UserApril 18, 2022