Questions

• Why do people go to solariums?
• What is good/bad about solariums?
• Does the government have a role in making choices for individuals?
• Who would be effected by this ban?
• What would people do instead?

Resources: 

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/html/prevention/sunsmart/downloads/informationsheet_solariums.pdf

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104971&catId=100563&tid=100008&p=1&title=Test%3a+Solariums

http://blogs.theage.com.au/lifestyle/beautybeat/archives/2007/06/tan_lines.html

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2056209.htm

2. That we should tax video games to fund programs to fight childhood obesity.

Briefing:

Childhood obesity is being increasingly recognised as a major health concern, with rising rates of Type 2 diabetes in younger children, which is caused by being obese and which in turn can cause heart attacks and strokes. There is a parallel discussion in the media around whether children, parents or society itself through advertising and the like, are directly responsible for this rising rate of obesity. There is also a popular social movement that believes that money to fund programs that do good in society should be taken from things that do evil, which is balanced against a movement that believes the government should tax as little as possible and let individuals and their parents make decisions around their health.

Questions:

•               Are there problems with childhood obesity? If so, what are they?
•              How does the government raise money to help society?
•               Do parents or society have a role in influencing whether a child is obese?
•               Are there alternatives to a tax for fixing the problems of childhood obesity  and violent video games?

Resources:

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/obesity/adult/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_rights

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#LimAutDem

3. That celebrities have too much influence over teenagers.

Questions:

• Who are celebrities?
• What is their role in society?
• What do celebrities do that might affect teenagers?
• How much do these things actually affect teenagers?
  
• Should the media report on the antics of celebrities?
  
• Should celebrities endorse products aimed at teenagers?
  
• How will you define "too much"?
  
• What other things effect teenagers?
  

Resources:

• http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/teenagers/dn4728-celebrity-friends-key-in-teen-development.html
• http://www.usaweekend.com/06_issues/060521/060521teens_and_celebs.html
  
• http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020101-000008.html
  
• http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=5679

How to approach this topic

When you are debating a topic like this, you are not debating whether celebrities have influence or not, but rather whether the amount of influence they have is the correct amount. To show this, you should set a standard (how much influence celebrities should have over teens) and using that to evaluate (by looking at how much influence celebrities do have) whether this is not enough, too much or just right.

 So at the start of the first affirmative’s speech, you might want to let the audience know what your standard is (“we believe that celebrities have too much influence if they make teenagers harm themselves / affect teenage behaviour / have any impact on teenagers”). You should then show why this is the correct standard, and how celebrities overstep it (hint: this is NOT your team split – all speakers will have to address these issues!) 

The negative team can then do several things. You might agree with the standard set by the affirmative, but argue that celebrities do not have that amount of influence. Or you may agree with the affirmative’s arguments about how much influence that celebrities have, but argue that you have a higher standard, and therefore that the influence is okay. Or you can disagree with both the standard and the amount of influence.

Round 4:
That Australia should abolish compulsory voting

Briefing:

Australia is one of the few democratic countries that still practices compulsory voting. Many people feel that this is the best way to ensure a broad cross-section of ideas and opinions whenever an election is called. However, other people feel that they should be able to choose whether or not they will vote.

• Is compulsory voting democratic?
• What kind of result will compulsory voting achieve in an election?
• What other kinds of elections are there?
• Is compulsory voting practiced elsewhere? Why/why not?

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RB/2005-06/06rb06.pdf

http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/200837_compulsoryvoting24.html

Round 5:
That Australia should embrace nuclear energy

Briefing:

The nuclear energy debate is part of a much larger debate, concerning how we create energy in the future. With the environment becoming a central political issue, “clean” energy is at the forefront of the publics mind. Nuclear energy has been around for a long time, but is not widely used in Australia. However, former Prime Minister John Howard was firmly in favour of nuclear energy as the answer to all of Australia's future energy concerns.

• Is nuclear energy safe?
• Can nuclear energy solve our current and future energy problems?
• What are the alternatives?
• What is wrong with the current energy production methods?

http://www.aussmc.org/Nuclear_energy_debate.php

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power/2006/12/29/1166895479257.html

http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/2006/07/should-we-embrace-nuclear-energy.html