Q: A lot of debates seemed to center around whether or not the effects of discrimination were valid arguments due to the wording of the resolution using “rightly”? Are the effect arguments even topical? Because if something is helping society does that make it constitutional?
My Topic Analysis posted on 1/29/2014 discusses the second interpretation of “rightly” that would allow you to make arguments about the effects of dicrimination. If “rightly” means morally, rather than correctly, you can argue all you want about the effects on society. Remember, the resolution does not ask if Section 4 of the VRA is constitutional, so the debate should not be about that. Even if it did ask that, the Supreme Court’s decision was a 5-4 split, meaning there are valid arguments for both sides of this Public Forum resolution.