# data[].attributes.body
I think novice should be more focused on policy issues specifically, and less on the moral side of arguments

# data[].attributes.body
should contain evidence/arguments which allow students to address morally objectionable arguments if they arise (don't know if this would be a "K'" without calling it a K)

# data[].attributes.body
moral arguments that are made on "most people think this" are generally not strong arguments / popularity arguments not good

# data[].attributes.body
should have qualified & credible sources - not just well known people or sources sharing opinions

# data[].attributes.headline
Unacceptable: More LD than Policy. They should be working to resolve problem. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Unacceptable: More LD than Policy. They should be working to resolve problem. 

# data[].attributes.body
Good to encourage students to start to develop own arguments so as to ease the transition to varsity

# data[].attributes.body
-Should represent diversity of views among students
-should not present arguments that deny humanity of debaters
-should contain evidence/arguments which allow students to address morally objectionable arguments if they arise (don't know if this would be a "K'" without calling it a K)
-grounding the evidence as much as possible in solid empirics might decrease chance of morally questionable analytics

# data[].attributes.body
Isn't this the division where we are empowering our debaters to call out racist arguments? I worry that if we create lines in this division, what will happen if our BDL debaters go off to Lexington and don't have the skills/understanding to call out racist BS?

I'm not saying "we should have no lines," but I do worry in that creating these lines, we are putting our debaters at a disadvantage...

...not convinced of my own argument, though.

# data[].attributes.headline
All ideas and topics should be available provided they are tied to citation. 

# data[].attributes.subject
All ideas and topics should be available provided they are tied to citation. 

# data[].attributes.headline
I think we should pivot away from topic focus and put all our energy in how to increase the educational and skill value for the debaters. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I think we should pivot away from topic focus and put all our energy in how to increase the educational and skill value for the debaters. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Part of this question is an issue of the packet

# data[].attributes.subject
Part of this question is an issue of the packet

# data[].attributes.body
I think that generally speaking, it's murky waters to get at ever censoring controversial scholarship, barring it being explicitly problematic, emphasis on explicitly. Where there's more control is the packet, and I think for the purposes of the packet, then I think it makes sense to make the packet really driven by the organization's mission and equity goals. To that end, I think that a lot of the problem could be fixed by being more creative or simply more focused on neg ground when choosing affs instead of forefronting good aff ideas. To the former's end, this may involve introducing Ks or complicated DA/CPs earlier, and to the latter's end, I think we may want to consider sacrificing good aff content in favor of strong neg content to avoid these issues of forcing the neg into morally questionable argumentation.

# data[].attributes.body
so it's important that the packet include arguments for aff and neg that students can feel comfortable making

# data[].attributes.headline
More allowance in Novice WITH clear explanations at end of rounds. 

# data[].attributes.subject
More allowance in Novice WITH clear explanations at end of rounds. 

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I found morally objectionable was something in the voting rights negative packet around voter enfranchisement being unpopular as “evidence” that it was a bad idea. Generally, I think this form of evidence is something we should avoid as moral decisions are typically unpopular in immoral societies

# data[].attributes.headline
No topicality linkage; refusing to debate. 

# data[].attributes.subject
No topicality linkage; refusing to debate. 

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously, we must be cautious when deciding what evidence we want to include in the packets. It would not be a good luck to use something that can be viewed as misinformation or "fake news" i.e. having articles that make a bold claim without any evidence. However, in terms of philosophy and world views, we should be open to different arguments and viewpoints, of course these would have to be from qualified individuals (professors, researchers, etc... and not politicians)

# data[].attributes.headline
We should be conservative in drawing the line in Novice.

# data[].attributes.subject
We should be conservative in drawing the line in Novice.

# data[].attributes.body
Many novice debaters may not stay around. Some also stay for a while. Almost all novice debaters generally consider the packet to be truth, ESPECIALLY if they struggle with literacy or have issues with cognition. If novice should be a place where debaters feel safe and learn basic content while understanding what debate is, we should be super careful about the arguments we give them, especially on the NEG (as I think that's where we see a lot of the more "controversial" arguments come in).

# data[].attributes.headline
All debaters must use the packet, so fine to narrow the range of acceptable in novice

# data[].attributes.subject
All debaters must use the packet, so fine to narrow the range of acceptable in novice