Fall State LA Agenda 2012

Cover Design: Courtney Cochran

* Fall State Los Angeles 2012 *
* Crafting a More Perfect Union: A Nation in Transition *

Letter from the Governor
Dear Fellow Junior Statesmen and Stateswomen,

Welcome to our first statewide convention of the year, 2012 Fall State Los Angeles! Whether this is your first or
tenth JSA convention, this weekend promises to be one of the most engaging conventions yet!

The theme, “Crafting a More Perfection Union: A Nation in Transition” could not be more relevant to the current
state of affairs. It is a defining time for our nation because ideally, after an election season, the focus shifts from
campaigning to solving the actual issues at hand. Now alleviating budget deficit, creating jobs, improving foreign
policy, or advancing education are not just open-ended campaign promises, but realities that the presidential
administration must address – it is time for tangible, necessary courses of action.

The hope is that our nation will not only transition, but also hopefully work towards more bipartisan cooperation.
With both parties are firmly locked into their own respective ideologies, it is inhibiting our country from moving
forward, which was clearly demonstrated throughout the campaign season. Ultimately, the needs of our
generation cannot even be properly addressed unless the nation’s leaders are able to view past their partisan
blindfolds and look toward solving the issues at hand.

This is why JSA is so important. Championing nonpartisanship and encouraging respectful, civilized discussion of
dissenting views on controversial issues, our politicians could learn quite a bit from the behavior of our Junior
Statesmen. So this weekend, my challenge to you is to set an example for our politicians – consider the opposite
side, challenge your own beliefs, try to achieve common ground with those who have divergent views, and most
importantly, act with high level of statesmanship.

Lastly, my cabinet and I want to ensure that your JSA experience is as incredible as possible. If you would like to
provide feedback on this convention, have suggestions for improvement, or want to share anything you enjoyed or
did not enjoy, please do not be afraid to contact me at anytime. We are here to serve you.

I cannot wait to witness the dynamic discussion and all the wonderful happenings of this weekend. I look forward
to seeing you all in action. Here’s to an amazing weekend!

All the Best,

Julianna Joss

Southern California Governor
jjoss@jsa.org


Agenda at a Glance
Saturday, November 17th, 2012
Registration 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM
Registration Registration Desk
Luggage Storage Century Pavilion

Opening Session 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Governor’s Address Marquis Ballroom
Speaker’s Address
Program Director’s Address
Keynote Speaker’s Address

Workshop Block 11:00 AM – 11:35 AM
Debate Workshop Atlanta-Boston
Moderating Workshop (Mandatory for all Moderators) Chicago-Dallas
Bill Writing Workshop Salon 1
Competitive Debate Workshop Scottsdale
Intro To JSA (Mandatory for all Newcomers) Salon 2
Chaperone Meeting (Mandatory) New York

Mock Trial 11:40 AM – 12:30 PM
Marquis Ballroom

Lunch 12:35 PM – 1:55 PM
Political Fair Marquis Foyer

Block I 2:00 PM – 2:50 PM
Speed Chess Debate: The Annexation of Puerto Rico Salon 1
Competitive Debate: Electronic Voting Salon 2
Debate: Death Penalty Salon 3
Debate: Buffet Rule Salon 4
Thought Talk: Religion in Democracy Salon 5 & 6
Political Party Education St. Louis
Artivism: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Chicago-Dallas
Council of Chapter Presidents Meeting (Mandatory) Scottsdale
Research Room Houston

Block II 3:00 PM – 3:45 PM
Competitive Debate: Genetically Modified Foodstuff Salon 2
Debate: Hydraulic Fracking Salon 1
Debate: Planned Parenthood Salon 3
Debate: Legalization of Marijuana Salon 4
Debate: Israel and Palestine Chicago-Dallas
Thought Talk: Income Inequality Salon 5 & 6
Political Compass Atlanta-Boston
Assembly Meeting Scottsdale
Senate meeting Miami

Coffee Break 3:45 PM – 4:05 PM
Block III 4:05 PM – 4:50 PM
Competitive Debate: Civil Disobedience Salon 2
Debate: Support Democracy Abroad Salon 1
Debate: ObamaCare Salon 3
Speed Chess Debate: U.S. Immigration Policy Salon 4
Thought Talk: Freedom of Speech Salon 5 & 6
Tap-In Debate Chicago-Dallas
YAB Interviews St. Louis
Chapter Affairs Meeting Scottsdale
Teacher Advisor Reception Philadelphia

Key Distribution & Dinner 4:55 PM – 7:00 PM
Regional Caucus 7:15 PM – 7:45 PM
Angeles Region Salons 1 & 2 & 3
Channel Islands Region Salons 4
Cabinet, SER Delegation Salons 5 & 6
Night Activities 8:00 PM – 12:00 AM
JSA Hot Seat 8:00 PM – 9:00 PM Scottsdale
Talent Show 8:00 PM – 9:30 PM Chicago-Dallas
Game/Chill Out 8:00 PM – 12:00 AM St. Louis
Quiz Bowl 9:00 PM – 10:00 PM New York
Movie Showing 9:30 PM – 11:00 PM Chicago-Dallas
JSA Ninja 11:00 PM – 12:00 AM Scottsdale

Dance 9:30 PM – 12:00 AM
Imperial Ballroom
Curfew 12:15 AM

Sunday, November 18th, 2012
Breakfast & Luggage Storage 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM
Block IV 9:30 AM – 10:20 AM
Debate: National Security Salon 1
Debate: National Debt Salon 2
Debate: Definition of Marriage Salon 3
Debate: Standardized Tests, SAT Salon 4
Thought Talk: Chick Fil-A Salon 5 & 6
What Type of Leader Are You? Chicago-Dallas
JSA Musical Chairs Scottsdale
Regional Cabinet Meetings Atlanta-Boston
Block V 10:30 AM – 11:20 AM
Debate: Google Salon 1
Debate: Supreme Court Justices Salon 2
Debate: Abolishing Boy Scouts Salon 3
Debate: News Media Outlets Salon 4
Thought Talk: Third Parties’ Role Salon 5 & 6
Drafting A New Nation Chicago-Dallas
Crisis Scenario Atlanta-Boston
Summer Programs Information Meeting Scottsdale
Block VI 11:30 AM – 12:20 PM
Speed Chess Debate: Capitalism Salon 1
Debate: Distribution of Tax Dollars Salon 2
Debate: China’s Human Rights Violations Salon 3
Debate: Catholic Church’s Contraceptives Salon 4
Thought Talk: War and Peace Salon 5 & 6
Political Compass Chicago-Dallas
Model UN Simulation: Gender Rights in the Middle East Atlanta-Boston
Chaperone Feedback Meeting (Optional) New York
Lunch 12:30 PM – 1:25 PM
Block VII 1:30 PM – 2:20 PM
Debate: Assault Rifles Salon 1
Debate: Public College Tuition Salon 2
Debate: Religious Political Campaigns Salon 3
Debate: Foreign-Born Presidential Candidates Salon 4
Thought Talk: Party’s Campaign Salon 5 & 6

Guess Who? Atlanta-Boston
Political Pictionary Chicago-Dallas

Closing Ceremony 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM
Imperial Ballroom

Full Agenda
Saturday, November 17th 2012

Registration 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM
Registration Registration Desk
All Chapter Presidents and Teacher/Advisors, please check in at the Registration Desk to sign in your
chapter and also to pick up the nametags and agendas!

Drop off all luggage and bags that you have brought at Century Pavilion! Be sure to take everything you
need for the blocks, because you will not be able to access your luggage until after dinner!

Opening Session 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Marquis Ballroom
Welcome to Fall State Los Angeles 2012 – Crafting a More Perfect Union: A Nation in Transition! We
will begin with a few words from our lovely Governor, Julianna Joss, who will go over the details of Fall
State including the new SoCal App, Mock Trial, and more. In addition our Speaker of the Assembly,
Nicole Michelson, will address the new advocacy department and the new ARTivism debates! Afterwards,
our Program Director, Tracy Thomas, will give a few words regarding standard procedure at FSLA! Then,
we have a great keynote speaker, Lynn Vavreck an associate professor at UCLA, who will be opening our
convention!

Guest Speaker: Lynn Vavreck (Please see her biography in the lack of this agenda)

Workshop Block 11:00 AM – 11:35 AM
Debate Workshop Atlanta-Ballroom
Led By: Timothy Kang (Diamond Bar)
Interested in brushing up on your skills a little bit before heading off to all of the debates that Fall State has
in store for you? Or is this your first convention and would you like to learn some basics that will help you
throughout your JSA career? Then come by to the debate workshop!


Moderating Workshop (Mandatory for all Moderators) Chicago-Dallas
Led By: Arjan Sindhu (Diamond Bar)
Want a brief recap of the skills necessary to become a good moderator? Remember that a good debate
depends not only on good speakers, but also on a good moderator that can keep everything under control!

Bill Writing Workshop Salon 1
Led By: Liam Nuebling (Servite)
For anyone that is planning on attending Winter Congress for the first time, this workshop is extremely
important! Here, you will learn the basics of writing bills that delegates will discuss and vote on during the
winter convention. Make sure you attend this one to learn how to write good briefs that may be a part of
this convention.

Competitive Debate Workshop Scottsdale
Led By: Andrew Lindeborg (Dana Hills)
Want to experience a more serious, formal style of debating? JSA offers a competitive debate scene that
allows multiple delegates to form a team that will compete against another in a high-level debate. To learn
more about this, come to the competitive debate workshop and learn from the Director of Competitive
Debate himself!

Intro To JSA (Mandatory for all newcomers) Salon 2
Led By: Julianna Joss (Orange County School of the Arts)
Is Fall State your first or third convention? Either one it may be, be sure to come to this workshop as it
will tell you the various things to do and see at FSLA! This workshop is mandatory for all new JSA’ers!

Chaperone Meeting (Mandatory) New York
Led By: Tracy Thomas
Teachers and advisors, please attend this mandatory meeting. These sessions ensure that all chapters are
aware of what is going on during the day. This is the time for teachers/advisors to ask questions and
receive answers.

Mock Trial 11:40 AM – 12:30 PM
Marquis Ballroom
Come partake in Southern California JSA’s first ever Mock Trial! This year, the Junior State is initiating a
new activity at Fall States all over the nation: A Mock Supreme Court Case. The chosen case is relevant to
present-day SCOTUS: Fisher vs. University of Texas, a case concerning the affirmative action policies of
the University of Texas.
The intention of JSA is to mimic the case and the way it will be presented in SCOTUS with our own
students, increasing the overall knowledge and community engagement of the members of this
organization. We will be mocking a real court proceeding with fellow JSA’ers to help facilitating the trial:
For more information about the procedures, please look at the back of the agenda!
Discussion Leader: Liam Nuebling (Servite)
Chief Justice: Matthew Cohen (Tarbut V-Torah)
Lead Attorney Petitioner: Jessica Shin (University)
Lead Attorney Respondent: Amita Pentakota (Harvard-Westlake)

Associate Justices:
Melissa Tapia (John Burroughs)
Nika Shahery (Buckley)
Zac Watson-Field (John Burroughs)
Chris Van Dam (John Burroughs)
Harrison Eiler (Servite)
Bob Knee (Marywood-Palm Valley)
Grant Crater (John Burroughs)
Wesley Powell (Santa Barbara)

Lunch 12:35 AM – 1:55 PM
After a long day of debating, one must be starving! Take this time to get a bite to eat or to relax with
fellow JSA’ers in the lobby. Attached is a list of places to eat, be sure to account the time it takes to walk
to and fro your destination!
Interested in politics? If you want to know more about the various political organizations in your local
area, be sure to come out to our Political Fair. Here there will be multiple organizations that will further
enlighten you on national issues and the parties’ platform.

Block I 2:00 PM – 2:50 PM
Political fair Marquis Foyer

Speed Chess Debate: The Annexation of Puerto Rico Salon 1
Moderator: Sabrina Lieberman (Marlborough)
Pro: Dennis Yeh (Newbury Park)
Con: Devin Morris (Crespi Carmelite)
Resolved, Puerto Rico should be admitted as the 51st state of the United States of America.
The current status of Puerto Rico is the “Free Associated State of Puerto Rico”. Such territorial status is
meant to be a transitional step towards a permanent status, such as statehood or independence. In the
1980 Harris v. Rosario case, The Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged that Puerto Rico fell
directly under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution and under the authority of Congress. This
current colonial status does not allow Puerto Ricans to vote for the President of the United States. Puerto
Ricans do not have representation in the U.S. Senate and no voting representation in Congress. Instead,
the 4 million U.S. Citizens of Puerto Rico only have one “Resident Commissioner” who cannot vote on
the House floor. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have no say in the making of the laws and statutes that apply to
them. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans do
not have representation in the U.S. Senate to cast an up or down vote on Supreme Court nominees. In
the end, Puerto Rico is governed by a Congress in which they are not allowed to participate in, an
Executive whom they did not elect, and a Judiciary whose justices they did not confirm. However,
Puerto Rico costs the U.S. over $22 billion a year, but as a state would only contribute $2 billion to the
U.S. Treasury. A sense of identity may also be lost. They would not be recognized as an individual nation
in the Olympic Games nor have a representative in their Miss Universe Pageant, which they have won
three times. English is mandatory in Puerto Rico’s public schools, but it is taught as a foreign language.

Fewer than 20 percent of Puerto Ricans can speak English fluently. If it becomes a state, Puerto Ricans
will no longer be exempt from federal income tax and even more people will be forced on the public dole
because of the effects of increased taxation on a struggling economy.

Competitive Debate: Electronic Voting Salon 2
Moderator: Andrew Lindeborg (Dana Hills)
Pro: Con:
Eric Castillo (Amino Leadership) Everton Gordon (College Ready #5)
Ruqayya Ahmad (Apple Valley) Neema Korouri (Corona Del Mar)
Cristina Tello (Bell Gardens) Tae-Min/Eric Kim (Crescenta Valley)
Andrew Blair (Bishop Montgomery) Thomas Yaeger (Crespi Carmelite)
Alexander Fatykho (Buckley) Alejandro Lomeli (Downey)
Grant Crater (Burroughs) Gabriela Ceballos (Harmony Magnet)
Alicia Tran (Cal Academy of Math) Samantha Garfield (Harvard-Westlake)
Ezliabeth Huber (Camarillo) Kortnee Ogbuefi (King Drew)

Resolved, the United States should enforce a system of electronic voting.
Elections are the crux of our democracy. We depend on an honest and secure electoral system for our
nation to function as the democratic society it was created to be. A system of electronic voting could
increase greatly the efficiency of American elections, however, after the 2006 Congressional House
Elections in District 13 of Florida’s Sarasota County, where an influential 18,000 electronic ballots failed
to register their votes, many Americans are hesitant to move forward with a switch to electronic voting.
Internationally, though, we see that even in the face of heavy criticism, substantial advances in voting
technology can be made; in France, where the argument was completely one-sided against the
implementation of such voting methods, in their 2007 general elections, an impressive 1.5 million votes
opted to utilize electronic voting machines in the eight voting districts they were available. The successes
in France, along with the complete integration of electronic voting in Brazil, show the possibilities this
new technology presents. However, even in these countries on the modern forefront of technological
voting, the balance between voter verification for fraud prevention and voter anonymity has been a
significant challenge to achieve. Even if a system were completely impervious to outside influence, would
it be worth implementing if the transition required that votes could not be cast in complete anonymity?
And could America ever be ready for such a transition?

Debate: Death Penalty Salon 3
Moderator: Kylee Borger (Orange Lutheran)
Pro: Amita Pentakota (Harvard-Westlake)
Con: Sophia Chen (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that the death penalty be abolished
Death penalty, or capital punishment, is a procedure that has been prescribed in almost every law code
since the inception of formal law itself. Reserved only for those who have committed the most heinous
crimes, the death penalty is seen by many as the only means of true retribution against the worst
malefactors of society. Furthermore, proponents claim that the death penalty claim that the current
method of execution, lethal injection, is painless and swift, a fate much kinder than that of the criminals’
victims. However, those that oppose the death penalty have clear, cogent arguments also. They address

the concern that a single death penalty case costs, on average, a few million dollars more than a life
without parole case, but rarely, if ever, does a death penalty execution actually occur; in most states, a
death row inmate will not get executed years after his sentence. Amidst other arguments, the death
penalty remains a highly contentious issue that has yet to be resolved.

Debate: Buffet Rule Salon 4
Moderator: Zachary Watson-Field (John Burroughs)
Pro: Alessandro Bressan (Crespi Carmelite)
Con: Kevin Conde (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that Congress Pass the Buffett Rule.
The Buffet Rule has become a major topic of debate in the past few years as it is a major point of the
Obama re-election campaign. It supports fair taxes, in which millionaires do not receive any of the tax
benefits that they currently do, and they pay a rate that is equal to the upper middle class. It was first
conceived of when billionaire Warren Buffet realized that “his secretary paid more in taxes than he did”.
The Buffet Rule was an attempt to make the system fairer for everyone. At first glance, this seems like a
wonderful idea. After all, the wealthy do earn more money so why shouldn’t they be taxed on it? The
main answer is that most millionaires and billionaires do not make the majority of their money off a salary,
and what they do make in salary is taxed like the rest of us. They make their money of investment or being
the owner of large companies, and money made off investment shouldn’t be taxed. The argument is that
the wealthy have already paid their taxes, and now they are just making “a little extra cash” off these
investments. People in favor of the Buffet Rule disregard this subtlety and simply state that it is unfair that
households earning over a million dollars pay less in taxes than those earning a hundred thousand. Another
argument against the Buffet Rule is that money made from investment or ownership of a company is
generally streamed back into the company, supporting expansion and in the long run more employees and
lower unemployment. This was the attitude during much of the Bush era, but now that we are out of it,
should the wealthy be taxed equally?

Thought Talk: What is the role of religion in democracy? Salon 5 & 6
Moderator: Amrita Kular (Van Nuys)
Religion is very prevalent in today’s society. The U.S. accepts people of all religions and is made up of
immigrants from all over the world. Some common religions we see in the U.S. today are Christianity,
Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. With such differing cultures, it is amazing how the U.S. is able to contain
such a diverse number of people that coexist peacefully. There are Buddhist temples, Catholic churches,
Christian churches, etc., built in all cities, and ideas are exchanged between people rapidly raising
awareness and understanding of each other. However, there are some religions that democracy doesn’t
welcome and those are the ones that are “radical” and restrict certain groups of people. Discuss what is the
role of religion in democracy. How do the principles of democracy influence the type of religion the
people practice?

Political Party Education St. Louis
Led By: Juan Jose Vega (Bell Gardens)
Come one and come all to learn about the very foundations of American politics, our political parties. We
will begin with a very concise summary of the historical background of each party, and then move onto
each party’s current flagship principles, and their well-known members. We will focus mainly on the stars

of our two party system, the Republicans and the Democrats. However, we will also stop over briefly to
learn a little about the socialists, greens, and the libertarians.

ARTivism Chicago-Dallas
Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life Debate
Moderator: Analise Spensieri (Xavier) & Maxwell Newsom (Orange County School of the Arts)
Pro: Juliette Myers (Orange County School of the Arts)
Medium: Visual
Con: Chris Van Dam (John Burroughs)
Medium: Poetry
The debate over abortion boils down to a debate over life. When does life begin? Does it begin at
conception, as the pro-life supporters like to claim, or does it begin later during a woman’s pregnancy, as
the pro-choice advocates believe? Those who support abortion believe it is the right of the mother, not the
government, to choose whether or not she wishes to have an abortion. On the other hand, those who
oppose it believe that it is the duty of the government to protect a fetus that cannot protect itself.
Whatever the case, abortion boils down to a battle of ideals – in a field where science has not yet
determined when life really begins, abortion has become one of the most controversial social topics to face
the country.

Council of Chapter Presidents Meeting (Mandatory) Scottsdale
Led By: Samantha Garfield (Harvard-Westlake) & Neema Korouri (Corona Del Mar)
The COCP Meeting is mandatory for all Chapter Presidents and Chapter Coordinators. If a Chapter
President is unable to attend, he or she must send another delegate to represent his or her school. This
meeting is a great time for us to check in on the status of each chapter in Southern California JSA. Those
who do attend will be able to share their ideas and concerns for this upcoming JSA year.

Need time to look up important information? What to prepare for your next debate? Or are you looking
for computers? Then check out the Research Room!

Block II _________ 3:00 PM – 3:45 PM
Competitive Debate: Genetically Modified Foodstuff Salon 2
Pro: Con:
Valley Dallas Thompson (Marywood-Palm) Ramin Parvinjah (San Marcos)
Sabrina Lieberman (Marlborough) Alexandrea Chima (St. Mary’s Academy)
Adriana Montes (Maywood Academy) Susan Yang (St Lucy’s Priori)
Paul Iskajyan (Mesorobian) David Gumberg (Van Nuys)
Henri Stern (Mirman) Neema Korouri (Corona Del mar)
Kevin Standridge (Newbury Park) Tony Person (Westlake)
Eunice Lee (Palisades Charter) Erick Castillo (Amino Leadership)
Josh Chittick (San Marcos) Nika Shahery (Buckley)

Resolved, genetically modified foodstuff should be banned from human consumption.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material has been
modified in a way that does not occur naturally. More than 60% percent of processed foods in American
grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. Most genetically modified crops have been
developed to improve yield number (providing food security for growing populations), durability
(enabling foods to be grown in otherwise incompetent environments), resistance to plant diseases and
insects, and tolerance towards herbicides. The three main concerns that GM foods bring on is allergenicity
(such as the introduction of allergens and toxins to food), gene transfer (the creation of “super” weeds and
other environmental risks as well as antibiotic resistance) and out-crossing (accidental contamination
between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods). Others include social effects such as
the domination of world food production by a few companies, increasing dependence on industrialized
nations by developing countries, and foreign exploitation of natural resources. Ethically, it violates natural
organisms’ intrinsic values and causes stress for animals. The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically
modified crops, but should we ban genetically modified foods and opt for the healthier organic foods?

Debate: Hydraulic Fracking Salon 1
Moderator: Edward Kim (Palisades)
Pro: Charles Kong (Palisades)
Con: Thomas Yaeger (Crespi Carmelite)
Resolved, that a moratorium be placed on hydraulic fracking across the U.S.
Hydraulic Fracking occurs across the U.S. and is the method by which oil and gas service companies
provide access to domestic energy trapped in hard to reach geologic formations. It allows for gas
companies to reach natural gas reserves, a key source for the energy that the U.S. has today. However,
there are consequences to such drilling, and extraction of natural gas reserves. Hydraulic fracking
causes water pollution in the fact that certain chemicals are injected deep into the ground, tapping into
the deep underwater wells. Because these natural sources flow in different directions, the direction in
which the pollution travels to is unpredictable, possibly hurting the natural environment. The issue to
consider in this debate is that should the key use of natural gas and its importance to the U.S. economy
be held in greater importance to its possible harm on the economy? Should a moratorium, a temporary
prohibition of an activity, be placed on hydraulic fracking for the environment’s sake?

Debate: Planned Parenthood Salon 3
Moderator: Valerie Edwards (Rosary)
Pro: Kevin Gu (University)
Con: Alysha Kundanmal (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that all national funding for Planned Parenthood be eliminated.
Planned parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive care healthcare and advocate. It works
to improve women’s health and safety, prevent unintended pregnancies, and advance the right and ability
of individuals and families to make informed and responsible decisions. However, earlier this year, the
Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is used 95
percent of the time to perform abortion. Social conservatives are rallying together to end this organization
because of this, an individual going so far as to call the organization, a “Nazi Organization”. The issue that
must be addressed in this debate is the morality of abortions. However, at the same time, the benefits of

the organization besides abortions must be addressed. Three points to consider of each side of this debate
is for pro: 1. The benefits of Planned Parenthood on society 2. Women depend on Planned Parenthood
for Support 3. Planned Parenthood should not be shut down because of abortion and it is the woman’s
choice anyways. On the flip side of this debate is that 1. The moral issue about abortion must be
addressed. 2. Planned Parenthood is not useful 3. It encourages the wrong ideology about pregnancies.

Debate: Legalization of Marijuana Salon 4
Moderator: Yegina Whang (Van Nuys)
Pro: Ahmed Shah (Van Nuys)
Con: Amanat Kular (Van Nuys)
Resolved, that medical marijuana be legalized nationally.
The legalization of marijuana (or cannabis) has been a topic of discussion since 1860. Around 1906
marijuana was labeled a poison, and in the 1920s and 30s it was made illegal in all states. Everything stayed
steady for about 40 years, until the 1970s, when decriminalization was first attempted. It has also been
debated whether or not marijuana can be used for medical purposes. In a 1978 case, Robert Randall was
arrested for using marijuana to treat glaucoma, but sued the federal government in retaliation. Many
proponents of medical marijuana argue that it is useful in the treatment of the symptoms of AIDS, cancer,
epilepsy, and many other conditions. This is countered with the argument that marijuana is dangerous and
there are other legal drugs that could accomplish the same goal. Although arguably dangerous, marijuana
is only as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana does still make other activities more dangerous than
they would be otherwise. There is also the entire financial business associated with the drug. Marijuana
could easily be a taxable luxury, bringing in desperately needed federal revenue. It could lower current
drug related crime rates, but also potentially risk opening a new breed of crimes and accidents. Morality
also plays a role in the debate, between those who say that use of marijuana is wrong and those who
believe it being illegal intrudes on personal freedom. Should this controversial drug be legalized in the
United States?

Debate: Israel and Palestine Chicago-Dallas
Pro: Kevin Standridge (Newbury Park)
Con: Devin Morris (Crespi Carmelite)
Resolved, the two-state solution is the most peaceful solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
“Two states, living side by side in peace and security,” in the words of President Barrack Obama, is the
solution to a century-long conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East. The “two-state
solution”, as formally established by the Saudi Arabia Peace Initiative in 2007, though the theory far
predates the official proposition, would recognize Israel as a state and offer them permanent peace with all
Arab countries in return for Israeli withdrawal from lands captured in the 1967 Six Day War. The entire
international community seemed proponents of this solution. However, when Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu publicly accepted a two-state solution in 2009, provided Palestinian leadership
respond in kind and recognize Israel’s Jewish nature, the Arab world exploded in protest. Egyptian
President Husni Mubarak, whose country had been at peace with Israel for 30 years, denounced the Prime
Minister’s statement as “scuppering at the possibilities for peace,” and the chief negotiator for the
Palestinians, Saeb Erekat defied the proposition, claiming Netanyahu “[would have] to wait 1,000 years

before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him.” In the face of such defiance, can the nation of
Israel possibly move forward in peace? How can the international community engage the two countries in
the struggle for peace? Is the “two-state solution” the best solution to the conflict between Israel and
Palestine, offering each what it wants most, namely, freedom and security? Or is there some alternative
that could better suit the needs and goals of the two?

Thought Talk: Does income inequality threaten our democratic society? Salon 5 & 6
Moderator: Shaun Flood (Santiago)
Democracy can be noted as a system of government with four key elements which include a political
system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation
of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, the protection of the human rights of all citizens, and a
rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Fundamentally, all such actions
can and should be done without the pressures of income inequality. The financial security of one and the
struggle of another do not mean that one is better than or granted with more rights than the other. The
majority of America is middle class, so voting is not meant to be swayed towards one extreme or the
other. Income disparities are also natural occurrences that will arise under America’s capitalistic “pursuit
of happiness”. However, current income inequalities might pose a threat to our society through the
propitious actions of the government, such as bailout, towards big businesses. Also, if the disparity
becomes large enough, the public might protest for the rich to be taxed and the living standards of poorer
classes to be raised. Such supporters, such as Barack Obama, might even be judged for having socialistic
tendencies and a possible revolution might arise. The rising of public resentment might force the powers
of our government to pass laws that for some can be considered as an infringement upon our democratic
ideals. Lastly, money can influence political will and power, as seen in the reform for campaign finances,
which includes attempts to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations.

Political Compass Atlanta-Boston
Led By: Jessica Shin (University)
Undecided on what your political affiliation is? Answer questions about current and politically charged
events and issues to help you navigate across the room to determine where you stand on issues compared
to your peers! This activity will help you figure out which political party you are best suited for, as well as
with you are not.

Assembly Meeting Scottsdale
Led By: Nicole Michelson (University)
This meeting is mandatory for all assembly members from each chapter. We will be discussing the
submitted planks, which will ultimately form the platform endorsed by the SoCal Junior State. Our main
plank for this meeting involves mandating secular sex education for all students, regardless of the school
they attend. Whoever wishes to come and participate is welcome to join as well!

Senate Meeting Miami
Led By: Grant Crater (John Borroughs)
The Senate Meeting is mandatory for all regional senators! Whoever wishes to come and learn more about
the Senate, feel free to come!


Coffee Break 3:45 PM – 4:05 PM
Take this time to relax or catch up on any research that you may need to do for your next debate!

Block III 4:05 PM – 4:50 PM
Competitive Debate: Civil Disobedience Salon 2
Pro: Con:
Everton Gordon (College Ready #5) Samantha Garfield (Harvard-Westlake)
Neema Korouri (Corona Del Mar) Kortnee Ogbuefi (King Drew)
Lizzy Steger (Villa Park) Sabrina Lieberman (Marlborough)
Tae-Min/Eric Kim (Crescenta Valley) Dallas Thompson (Marywood Palm)
Thomas Yaeger (Crespi Carmelite) Adriana Montes (Maywood Academy)
Alejandro Lomeli (Downey) Hyun Edward Kim (Palisades Charter)
Gabriela Ceballos (Harmony Magnet) Ramin Parvinjah (San Marcos)
Lizzy Steger (Villa Park) Jasmine Lee (Van Nuys)
Tony Person (Westlake)

Resolved, that civil disobedience in a democratic nation is morally permissible

A democratic nation such as the U.S. is based on the idea of majority rule. Voting is a system by which we
make our decisions and our laws. It is also how we allow the government to become aware of what the
people want. Civil obedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and
commands of a government of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience occurs most often in
the form of nonviolent resistance. The question to consider is, what constitutes a situation justified on
moral grounds in which a state should be allowed to resist? Three types of civil disobedience comes in the
form of “integrity-based”, “justice based”, and “policy based”. The first is when a citizen refuses on the
ground that they feel that the act is immoral. The second is when a citizen disobeys a law in order to lay a
claim to a right that wasn’t previously given. The last occurs when the citizen breaks the law in order to
change a policy that is dangerously wrong. All three are very different controversial forms of civil
disobedience. Several arguments for the allowance of civil disobedience is that it forces the government to
listen to the voices of the people, rather than the majority. A second possible argument is that it allows the
voice of the people to be heard in a peaceful manner, encouraging nonviolence. Several arguments against
civil disobedience is the very inefficient nature of the act itself. A second argument against civil
disobedience is the model that it gives to people. It gives a bad example to others, and teaches them to
only refuse, rather than actively communicate and reform a plan of action to suggest.

Debate: Support Democracy Abroad Salon 1
Moderator: Sarah-Michelle Escobar (Bell Gardens)
Pro: Vikram Baid (Corona Del Mar)
Con: Jarett Davis (Van Nuys)
Resolved, that the United Stated aid all international uprisings supporting democracy.

The idea of democracy promotion is part of foreign policy adopted by the U.S. government to support the
spread of democracy as a political system around the world. The strategy is in part a strengthening of the
idea of liberty and justice. Because it is something we treasure and the core of our foundation, America
should spread the love by promoting democracy in other countries. Some say that democracies mean more
peaceful countries, both domestically and internationally, and so it should be in the interest of the United
States to promote democracy, which would ultimately mean promoting world peace. It is viewed as a
privilege under which its people benefit from their human rights. Democracy might also improve the
economy by enabling countries to trade freely and openly, promoting growth and wealth worldwide.
However, democracy promotion might be used for other purposes that go against the spirit of freedom
and liberty. It might entail a system of unwanted U.S. involvement and needless financial expenditure on
our behalf. Many say that as an entirely separate country, the U.S. should not have to interfere or impose
themselves upon a land thousands of miles away. Also, democracies are not often fully achieved, resulting
in an unsteady half-way state. During economic hardships like these, should the United States aid
international uprisings to promote the spirit of democracy?

Debate: ObamaCare Salon 3
Moderator: Matthew Cohen (Tarbut V-Torah)
Pro: Bronte Sorotsky (Palisades)
Con: Ben Beatty (Buckley)
Resolved, that Congress should repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “ObamaCare”.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also called “Obamacare” is the newly passed healthcare
bill that states that all people must have health care. Those who do not have healthcare are fined. There
are two sides to this issue. On the negative standpoint, the PPA could be thought of as a good thing for the
people, providing preventative care as an option. The second pro argument that could be made is that
costs for medical help will be lowered, and lastly a third possible argument that could be made is that
better health creates more workers able to get jobs, stimulating the economy. On the other side of the
issue, the PPA act could be thought as a mandate forcing people to follow with a rule that does not
necessarily serve to benefit everyone. The second argument against the PPA act could be that it forces a
burden on hospitals, making doctors exchange quality for efficiency. The main issue at hand that must be
addressed is, does the government have an obligation to provide for the people’s health and is the PPA
practical?

Speed Chess Debate: U.S. Immigration Policy Salon 4
Moderator: Daniel Hamidi (Valencia)
Pro: David Wang (Whitney)
Con: Andrew Nemnich (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved: Does America’s current immigration policy violate the principles upon which America was founded?
According to the Immigration Policy Center under the American Immigration Council, “historically,
immigration to the United States has been based upon three principles: the reunification of families,
admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, and protecting refugees.” The
current immigration policy violates America’s basic principles of freedom, opportunity, and rights
through the inhibition of economic opportunity and the pursuit of happiness. Many immigrants come to
develop skills through opportunities not provided or difficult to obtain elsewhere. By rejecting such
people, the United States essentially becomes a hypocrite to its own basic principle upon which it was

founded, namely freedom and opportunity. Families may be torn apart by the authority, which ruins the
other basic principle of the pursuit of happiness. Also, laws such as profiling can be misused in the hands of
officials, as seen in Arizona when officers were given the right to stop suspicious looking people,
ultimately a discrimination against race and stereotype. However, America’s immigration policies exist
because most citizens in nation states have a sense of nationalism by which they seek to retain the integrity
of national ideologies, institutions, and boundaries. Realistically, the United States cannot support and
provide for approximately one million illegal immigrants every year, even if it wanted to. By using the
family preference system, family-based immigrants are allowed to become citizens. This is a restriction,
but not a violation, towards our fundamental principles. The overall number of immigrants becomes
balanced and those with valuable skill can contribute to the overall American economy, not detract from
it. Is it not also the nation’s right to decide what is best for the nation’s people? Immigration puts a
considerable amount of pressure on our economic system, and setting the bar to those with valuable skill
can become an indispensable right for the people of a nation.

Thought Talk: Can absolute free speech endanger government stability? Salon 5 & 6
Moderator: Shaun Flood (Santiago)
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press…” With absolute freedom of speech, a democratic society of free
thinkers and decision-makers, rather than a dictatorial government, takes hold, as well as the ability to
communicate a diverse source of views to the government. Also, the freedom of speech is a means of
participation which can encourage consensus or compromise, facilitating majority rule, and assure the
natural rights of mankind to hold his or her own thoughts. However, some Americans have argued that the
restriction of absolute free speech, such as speech advocating crime and revolution, actually makes a
country more stable, increasing the ability to maintain law and order. Discussions in dangerous or
unguarded subjects, such as violence or terrorism, can be inflamed by a concept known in psychology as
group polarization, a phenomenon that occurs when individuals’ slight or cautious tendencies towards an
idea will greatly intensify when in a group and especially after a group discussion. Other restrictions to
absolute freedom of speech may include the censoring of “offensive speech to protect children, the
permissibility of banning speech that defeats protection of intellectual property, the propriety of curbing
speech to shelter personal reputation and privacy, the right to restrict political contributions and
expenditures to reduce the influence of money on the political process”. The need for peace and order in
society must be balanced with the right to express one’s point of view. As of yet, Americans are given the
liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint, but are not given the absolute right.

Tap In Debate Chicago-Dallas
Led By: Zac Watson-Field (John Borroughs)
This activity is an excellent way to practice your debate skills in a fun, more informal style. A topic to
debate is selected, and the room divides into two teams- one the proponency and one the opponency. A
speaker is then selected from each team, and they begin to debate the topic. At any point during the
debate, a member from the speaker’s team may tap the speaker on the shoulder, and continue to debate
the topic.

YAB Interviews St. Louis
Led By: Nicole Michelson (University) & Daniel Hamidi (Valencia)

Have you ever thought about getting further involved in politics? Do you wish to influence policy on a
national scale? If so, then come down to the Youth Advisory Board Interviews! Check on the Youth
Advisory Board Handout whether or not your Congressional Representative has decided to form a Youth
Advisory Board with JSA! Even if they didn't, there are some representatives who are willing to take
students from every district in their Youth Advisory Boards so come on down anyways! The SoCal
Advocacy Department will be hosting short interviews to decide a team of JSA students to meet up with
their Representative 2-3 times a year. At the meetings, students would be talking to their representative
or their representative's staff member about issues of importance to them. Can't wait to see you!

Chapter Affairs Meeting Scottsdale
Led By: Samantha Garfield (Harvard-Westlake) & Neema Korouri (Corona Del Mar)
All members of Chapter Affairs must attend this meeting to discuss our progress and to discuss ways of
improvement. If anyone wishes to get involved or voice any opinions, please feel free to attend the
meeting!


Teacher Advisor Reception Philadelphia
Teachers and advisors, please come attend the reception and receive the keys for your students.

Key Distribution 4:55 PM – 7:00 PM
Find your Teacher/Advisor and receive your hotel keys! Be sure to go to Century Pavilion and grab your
luggage and bring it up to your room. Then go to dinner!

Regional Caucus 7:15 PM – 7:45 PM
Angeles Region Salons 1, 2 & 3
Channel Islands Region Salon 4
Cabinet, SER Delegation Salons 5 & 6

Night Activities
JSA Hot Seat 8:00 PM – 9:00 PM Scottsdale
The audience will vote on a controversial issue to discuss. Two individuals (one for the
proponecncy, and one for the opponency) will volunteer to answer questions for 3 minutes from
the audience pertaning to the controversial issue. Multiple speakers for the proponency and for the
opponency may volunteer to speak and answer questions, and at the end the audience will have the
opportunity to vote on the issue.

Talent Show 8:00 PM – 9:30 PM Chicago-Dallas
Have a talent? Interested in showcasing your unique talents? Want to see people sing, draw, or
even dance – come down to the talent show! There will be a panel of judges who will decide our
winner, and the winner will receive a special prize!

Game/Chill Out 8:00 PM – 12:00 AM St. Louis
Not in the mood for dancing? That’s fine! Come hang out with your friends to relax and unwind
after an eventful day!
Quiz Bowl 9:00 PM – 10:00 PM New York
A moderator will read a series of questions to two teams, and whichever team answers correctly
first scores points. The winner is determined by whichever team can answer the most questions
correctly. Teams will be asked questions about current events, political leaders and policies, and
governments.

Movie Showing 9:30 PM – 11:00 PM Chicago-Dallas
After a long day of debating, come down and watch the Inception!

JSA Ninja 11:00 PM – 12:00 AM Scottsdale
Come play Ninja with your friends!

Dance 9:30 PM – 12:00 AM
Imperial Ballroom
After a long day of debating, come out to the dance floor and have fun with friends! Be sure to keep it
classy JSA’ers!

Curfew 12:15 AM

Sunday, November 10th, 2012
Breakfast & Luggage Storage 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM

Block IV 9:30 AM – 10:20 AM
Debate: National Security Salon 1
Con: Shaun Flood (Santiago)
Resolved, that national security take legal precedence over individual liberties.
America has a notable issue with security stepping on people’s right to privacy. Articles come out all the
time about how most forms of modern communication are being tapped into, and can easily be used as
evidence. But national security is an important standard of government, one that it has put millions
towards upholding. Currently the government has the ability to monitor any whatsoever suspicious
activity. The war on terror bred several controversial sections that infringe on the rights of people, but
also arguably help track down terrorists and other criminals. Facebook messages, e-mails, texts, and any
other “tangible documents” are all fair game in court trials. Other forms of security are the new
technology used by the TSA (transportation security administration) to monitor the passengers on

airplanes. In both cases, these measures have been combated as violating security, and moreover the basic
rights of the people. On the other hand, while the sample is small, these innovations appear to be
preventing large scale terrorism. The United States is noted as among the countries with the least privacy
for the people, and also with a notoriously intrusive security web. Should national security rise above a
person’s right to privacy?

Debate: National Debt Salon 2
Pro: David Wang (Whitney)
Con: Adam Betters (Santa Barbara)
Resolved, the national debt will be the largest threat to American national security.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen claimed in August 2010 that the
single biggest threat to national security would be the national debt. An estimated $600 billion in interest
alone will be paid by taxpayers in 2012. Debt held publicly is now equal to 70% of the gross domestic
product. With a myriad of other worrisome statistics and trillion-dollar deficits, it’s no wonder many
economists and foreign policy experts alike consider the rising debt held by our country significant and
frightening. Much of this is due to the fact that half of our current deficit financing is provided by
foreigners who can provide low interest rates and domestic investment, but critics worry that as US debt
becomes less attractive on the world market, perks like these may not last. According to the nonpartisan
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Obama’s long-term budget plan would allow
publicly held debt as a fraction of GDP to rise further, up to 75% within a decade; Romney’s proposal,
which features a contrasting plan of tax cuts, defense spending increases, and entitlement reform, would
drive debt up to 95% of GDP in the same amount of time. At such a level of debt, we would be required
to spend the first trillion dollars of every year’s federal budget on existing debt in order to avoid increasing
borrowing. This would disable the rest of our nation’s programs (i.e. financing for infrastructure, public
education, scientific research, even defense spending) and send us into an irreversible economic decline,
undermining US leadership abroad, which could inspire actions by hostile nations or organizations
observing our apparent decline.
Faced with the facts above, it seems simple to determine national debt as the foremost threat to our
nation; however, national debt is neither an immediate threat, nor an unsolvable one. Arguably, greater
threats exist in our dependence on digital communications and commerce, the unsustainability of our way
of life, infrastructure breakdown, or an overbearing federal government, let alone terrorism and nuclear
warfare. Our digital way of life has made us extremely susceptible to theft of intellectual property,
financial information, and identity, and while advances in technology have aided in protecting the average
consumer from such exploitations, 1 in 6 people fell victim to identity theft last year, costing consumers
and business over $50 billion. Since 9/11, the power of the federal government has expanded at an
unprecedented rate in an effort to protect citizens from external and domestic terrorist threats, but these
infringements of basic liberties such as the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to due
process of law have done more to create fear in the American population than to eliminate it. Violations of
human rights pose as great a threat to our nation’s security as any, even if perpetrated by our own
government. Is our nation’s financial state the most critical danger to our security? Is there a solution to
the problem of our government’s almost habitual borrowing? Or should we be focusing our security
efforts elsewhere, outside our borders to the volatile nations of Iran or North Korea with nuclear
capabilities, or inside, to our dependence on unsustainable energy and digital communications? Or are we

are biggest threat; have we, in striving to form a nation with such security, given up the freedoms we
sought to secure?

Debate: Definition of Marriage Salon 3
Moderator: Aidan Perricone (Palisades)
Pro: Daniel Shourner (Tarbut V-Torah)
Con: Ryan Farhat (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that marriage be legally defined as the union between one man and one woman.
The controversy over same-sex marriage continues to be one of the most socially and legally debated
issues of the day. Supporters of same-sex marriage declare that they should be given the rights entitled to
all men under the Constitution and to the right to the “pursuit of happiness”. Homosexuals are human
beings too, so they should be given the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marriage. They
argue that producing children would not be a problem as there is an abundance of orphaned or abandoned
children. Those against same-sex marriage claim that there would be no reason to undermine the
traditionally established understanding and sanctity of marriage to appease the rights of homosexual
couples, which can lead to disruption in society. Marriage is a critical social institution common to all
cultures around the world that exists for not only the benefit of couples and their children, but serves a
useful purpose in the social system. Married gay couples might become even more harassed for the mere
reason of being married. By living together in civil union and not under a license, which constitutes one
man and one woman together, a homosexual couple can stay “till death do [them] part”. The Constitution
also does not entertain the idea of same-sex marriage, making such an act unconstitutional. The law would
not restrict the intention of same sex couples’ desire to remain loyal to each other for a lifetime, so the
couple can continue to live so without being certified as married to each other.

Debate: Standardized Tests, SAT Salon 4
Moderator: Amrita Kular (Van Nuys)
Pro: Drew Hanson (Corona Del Mar)
Con: Kevin Conde (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that Standardized Tests such as the SAT should not have a major impact on college admissions
The SAT was created to allow college admissions staff to gauge just how prepared one is to handle college-
level academic courses. Millions of Americans take the test every single year. But recently, the test has
come under fire as being racially biased, unimportant and overly emphasized. Some students are not as
good of test takers as others, test opponents may argue. Is the SAT over-valued? And if it is, is there a
better method for determining a student’s potential collegiate capability?

Thought Talk: Chick Fil-A Salon 5 & 6
Moderator: Kit Lee (Van Nuys)
Is it acceptable for Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick Fil-A to make comments against the LGBT community.
Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick Fil-A made strong comments against the LGBT community, angering
many customers and outside sources. He spoke representing his company, confirming that Chick Fil-A had
long since had distaste for LGBTs. There is an ongoing attack on Chick Fil-A since these comments were
made public. Cathy clearly holds the politically incorrect position, and the LGBT community has gone to
great lengths to make him aware of this. Some have even gone so far as to boycott Chick Fil-A. This attack

could be considered unconstitutional because it violates Cathy’s right to freedom of speech. On the other
hand, is it really correct for a CEO to speak publicly about such a heated subject about the rights of the
LGBT community? It was certainly a poor business decision to speak out, even if he is legally allowed to.
Even so, American citizens are encouraged as a whole to speak out, and high end CEOs should not be
discriminated against. Was it acceptable for Dan Cathy to share his opinions and the opinions of his
company in public, or would it have been better for him to have kept them to himself?

What Type of Leader Are You? Chicago-Dallas
Led By: Julianna Joss (Orange County School of the Arts)
In a world filled with various different types of leaders, it is hard to distinguish which type of leader you
are. Whether you are a compassionate or aggressive leader, this workshop is designed to help you figure
out what type of leadership category that suits you best. We will discuss effective ways to guide people
and advice on what to do, and not to do. We will help you figure out how to become a better leader, as
well as a better person.

JSA Musical Chairs Scottsdale
Led By: Lynn Ta (Segerstrom)
In this activity people play musical chairs just as it is usually played; however with a JSA twist! When the
last two people are left out, they must debate one issue (1 minute speaking time each), and the winner
gets to stay in and the loser gets out! This is a fun way to get familiarized with relevant issues while still
having some competition!

Regional Cabinet Meetings Atlanta-Boston
Led By: Sabrina Lieberman (Marlborough) & Forbes Bainou (Dos Pueblos)
The Angeles Region cabinet will convene to plan our winter events. We will be discussing an AR Fund
Fundraiser, a social event, and a potential tri-regional conference. We look forward to a productive
meeting and some great events!
The Channel Islands Regional Cabinet will review and asses all CIR chapters, discuss possible Spring One
Day plans, and schedule advertising for winter congress!
If anyone wishes to give comments or participate, feel free to go to your respective region and voice your
opinions!


Block V 10:30 AM – 11:20 AM
Debate: Google Salon 1
Moderator: Fredy Ramirez (Bell Gardens)
Pro: Amrita Kular (Van Nuys)
Con: Allen Chen (Corona Del Mar)
Resolved, that Google be prohibited from holding search records for any amount of time.
Indeed it is possible to delete Internet history for an element of personal privacy, but that of course is only
on a personal level. Regardless of what is done on any given computer Google keeps records of everyone’s

Internet history. In a recent trial, Google was fined 22 million dollars for attempting to bypass security
that was established on Apple’s browsing networks. Google executives claimed that the incident was an
accident, but the history still stands. Many will argue that holding search history records is a clear violation
of natural privacy rights. While the information may be safe and away from close family members, a
record of internet history could in many cases could cause trouble for people in high positions or with
great ambitions. On the contrary, Google history could be a useful element for maintaining security. In
opposition to the privacy argument, other places of research, such a libraries, keep records of what is
looked at and when. Google history is only a reasonable extension on what has already been established as
normal. Should it be legal for Google to maintain search record history?

Debate: Supreme Court Justices Salon 2
Moderator: Juan Jose Vega (Bell Gardens)
Pro: Matthew Cohen (Tarbut V-Torah)
Con: Oliver Bassir (Crespi Carmelite)
Resolved, that Supreme Court Justices should have limited terms
The position of Supreme Court justice fosters a naturally longer span than most other political reason for a
variety of reasons. First off, a justice cannot be voted out, and for all intensive purposes maintains
complete and utter immunity to any claims against them, simply because they functionally cannot lose
their job. They are arguably isolated from the people they are supposed to represent. A justice cannot
even be forced to share some justification on their opinions. This has caused many independent groups to
suggest limiting the term of the justice. It is argued that having a more frequent changing of justices would
allow for a more balanced jurisdiction. On the contrary, justices generally will rule similarly to their
precedents. This creates a sort of organization and unification, but also causes the judgment to become
more mechanical, without much consideration for the new changing ways of the United States. The issue
has become even clearer as in recent years justices have had more and more power over important
decisions. Should the current average term of 26 years be limited to be more on par with other positions
of equal rank?

Debate: Abolishing Boy Scouts Salon 3
Moderator: Sarah-Michelle Escobar (Bell Gardens)
Con: David Taylor (Valencia)
Resolved, that organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be abolished.
According to it’s mission statement, the Boy Scouts of America seeks “to prepare young people to make
ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law,”
which determine a scout to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful,
thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent,” and “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
Controversy has arisen over the past two decades, as societal acceptance of the LGBTQ community has
increased, over the BSA’s discriminatory policy prohibiting homosexual members and leaders. Since 1991
openly homosexual individuals have officially prohibited from leadership positions in the BSA. A Position
Statement made that year states: “[The Boy Scouts of America believes] that homosexual conduct is
inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight... and that
homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” The BSA’s policies have been sharply
contrasted to the plethora of other American youth organizations which do not support policies excluding

homosexuals and atheists, such as the Girl Scouts of the USA, 4-H, and the BSA’s own Learning for Life
program. Public outcry against the BSA’s policy has dramatically increased, and recently the BSA’s largest
corporate donor, Intel, officially withdrew its support from troops discriminating against homosexuals.
However, litigation over membership policies of the BSA have consistently resulted in rulings in favor of
the scouting organization. Particularly, the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, in which the Supreme Court
ruled in 2000 that the BSA’s constitutional right to freedom of association gave them the authority to set
membership standards as a private organization. In response to the Supreme Court ruling, much of the
debate shifted to the BSA’s relationship with the government; historically, the Boy Scouts of America has
been granted preferential access to government resources like lands and facilities, and in certain
municipalities, the conditions of the BSA’s preferential access to public and nonpublic governmental
resources have become controversial when the BSA’s policies come in conflict with local or state non-
discrimination ordinances.
The federal government has mandated, in light of these conflicts, that BSA units still be given equal
access to local and state-level governmental resources. Still, a number of public entities have canceled
charitable donations that had historically been granted to the BSA. These public cessations of support have
been responded to with both expressions of affirmation and condemnation of the Boy Scouts of America,
and organizations on both sides of the argument have waged wars of publicity and litigation for their
causes. Yet the BSA maintains the policy is the “absolute best” for the organization and makes no effort to
conceal their discrimination. Should an organization with such influence over our youth be allowed to
discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should the government intervene on behalf of the youth, despite
the court's rulings concerning private organizations such as the BSA? Or should the Boy Scouts of America
be permitted to continue their policies of discrimination based on sexual orientation undeterred?

Debate: News Media Outlets Salon 4
Moderator: Aidan Perricone (Palisades)
Pro: Kevin Gu (University)
Con: Amanat Kular (Van Nuys)
Resolved, that major media news outlets be required to declare their political stance.
To some it seems obvious that the news on television is almost always biased to one side or another, but
many people still fail to notice. This lack of knowledge can be explained by the fact that most people do
not carefully analyze everything their TV is telling them. It’s very easy to listen to a short snippet and
believe that everything said is a fact, a perfect summary of what it represents. The truth is that the average
story is around two minutes, and much of what is said has been compressed and twisted. Requiring news
outlets to declare a political stance could be the solution to the problem, where everyone would know
right up front what kind of information they were dealing with. On the other hand, forcing a declared
political stance could bring even more separation to the parties. People would be tempted to only watch
news on their side of the political spectrum, creating a cycle in which everyone slowly becomes more
radical and more divided. Should the media state which side they are on, or should it be left up to the
people to judge the content for themselves?

Thought Talk: What will be the role of third parties in American Politics? Salon 5 & 6
Moderator: Paul Yoon (John Burroughs)
While third parties' candidates pose a virtually nonexistent threat to presidential candidates from the two
main parties, third parties have played arguably pivotal roles in influencing politics in the 20th-21st

centuries. Over the years, 3rd parties have influenced important legislation. For example The Prohibition
and Socialist Parties supported the 19th Amendment, which granted universal suffrage, in the late 1800's
before its passage in 1916. The Populist Party and The American Know-Nothing Parties influenced
Immigration Acts that were passed as well. In fact, the Free Soil 3rd party was absorbed by the present-
day Republican Party and to later run Abraham Lincoln for office. The questions now, however, that are
posed are: Do thirds parties play a significant role in politics today? Are they just smaller factions of the 2
main political parties with singular, highly streamlined, or radical goals? Are they necessary in politics
today? Are they being overlooked to quickly?

Drafting A New Nation Chicago-Dallas
After a horrendous world war, nations have been destroyed and all of the once great civilizations are now
gone and a thing of the past. All that you have left are a confused and lost population that has been thrown
together, racial and cultural barriers have been pushed aside in order for survival, and a barren landscape
which can bear sustenance, if given with the proper care. Now you and your fellow leaders will decide
how to run and organize the New World. Will you decide to split up the world into city-states, like the
Greeks did, or would you create a centralized empire, like the Chinese? Be sure to explore different
political options and take into consideration the socioeconomic patterns of our history. May the odds be
ever in your favor.

Crisis Scenario Atlanta-Boston
Led By: Kylee Borger (Orange Lutheran)
In the year 2012, Iran has launched an attack on Israel and has gained the support of several other Arab
nations. The world is on the brink of war, and the United States must find a way to navigate itself through
this disaster. How would you handle this situation? You will be placed in various roles ranging from the
President to the Head of the CIA. Figure out a plan to help America deal with what will possibly be World
War III.

Summer Programs Information Meeting Scottsdale
Led By: Juliette Myers (Orange County School of the Arts)
At this informational meeting, you will have the opportunity to hear from people who went to JSA
Summer School and about the amazing programs at Georgetown, Princeton, Stanford, and the Capital
Normal University in Beijing. Find out how you can earn an entire semester of high school credit learning
about United States politics and government, while living on these college campuses with students from
around the world!


Block VI 11:30 AM – 12:20 PM
Speed Chess Debate: Capitalism Salon 1
Moderator: Thomas Yaeger (Crespi Carmelite)
Pro: Andrew Larson (Corona Del Mar)
Con: Joe Rayos (Crespi Carmelite)

Resolved, that capitalism is the best economic policy in theory.
The United States currently has adopted a Capitalistic standpoint regarding economics, politics, etc.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation
of goods and services for profit. This system allows for competitive markets, wage labor, and state
capitalism. In other words, capitalism is a profit driven theory that thrives on competition. In essence what
capitalism stands for is economic freedom, the right for individuals for to pursue his or her financial goals
without governmental interference. On the flip side of the debate, capitalism has its faults as well. Three
faults that it proposes is that capitalism leaves too much power in the hands of the wealthy, who hoard
their money depriving the poor of that income, it attempts to regulate society, and lastly, it is much too
expensive of a system to maintain. Rather than focusing on the faults of capitalism, should society focus
more on providing education? What role does capitalism in every day society and who is affected? Are
there any impacts?

Debate: Distribution of Tax Dollars Salon 2
Pro: Anthony Martinez
Con: Alessandro Bressan
Resolved, that the distribution of tax dollars should be decided in part by public voting.
Offering people the option to fill out their tax forms to designate where their tax dollars go can become a
way to make people supportive, or at the very least a little more willing, to pay their taxes. As a
democracy, the voice the people would be heard and complaints would be lessened if decisions were made
by the majority for general will of the people. Tax season might become a time to discuss aspects of the
government and the merits of funding them. Is not the reason for the American Revolution primarily
because of “taxation without representation”? Similarly, the American people should decide where their
hard-earned money should go. However, this choice could be detrimental to essential, but possibly
disregarded programs or vocations to become unfunded. Furthermore, politicians and accountants decide
how much every governmental program will be budgeted, and the general fund would be split up
according to how much each program needs to reach prior budgeting, making almost no difference to how
the tax dollars will be spent. Instead of sifting through every taxpayer’s specific funding requests every
year, the government instead grants the American people the right to vote in an elected official to make
such decisions, a concept called representative democracy. This system works based on the idea of a
united nation working together under the laws such as justice and social security.

Debate: China’s Human Rights Violations Salon 3
Moderator: Giovannia Partida (Bell Gardens)
Pro: Kevin Conde (Corona Del Mar)
Con: Jesse Liu (Harvard-Westlake)
Resolved, that the United States openly condemn China’s human rights violations.
In a world rapidly undergoing great socio-economic change and modernization, China, though one of the
most flourishing national economies, maintains an authoritarian one party state, one, which imposes sharp
curbs on the freedoms of expression, association, and religion on the nation’s people. According to
Amnesty International, an estimated 500,000 Chinese are currently in punitive detention without charge
or trial. Chinese censorship of the Internet has increased in recent years. The Chinese government
arbitrarily restricts human rights organizations, openly rejecting judicial independence and press freedom,

all in the name of “social stability”. Still, the Chinese are increasingly rights-conscious; citizens participate
in an estimated 250-500 protests per day, according to the Human Rights Watch, in numbers ranging
from tens of people to tens of thousands. In response, the United States’ government has “raised concerns”
of China’s violations of human rights in their annual conferences with Chinese leaders, encouraging the
nation “to open up the space to allow people to dissent, to question government actions, and to do so
without fear of retribution.” However, critics say that merely raising concerns with the Chinese
government is a strategy of diplomatic futility. What further action, if any, should the US government
take to protect the natural rights of the Chinese people? How should the national sovereignty of a foreign
nation factor into the actions of our government when human rights are on the line?

Debate: Catholic Church’s Contraceptives Salon 4
Moderator: Jarret Davis (Van Nuys)
Pro: Amanat Kular (Van Nuys)
Con: Matthew Motamedi
Resolved, that the Catholic Church should not prohibit contraceptives.
The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically traced.
Viewing sex to be purely procreative, they believe any form of artificial birth control to be intrinsically
evil. Pope Paul VI formally explained and expressed the Catholic Church’s position on contraception in
1968 in his writing, Humanae Vitea, which stated he believed that such prevention could lead to marital
infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. But since the sexual revolution in the 1960’s, sex has
become more recreational than reproductive and some argue that it is impractical for the church to
maintain this view. Now birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancy and has allowed women to take
full control of their body. Also, in the event of nonconsensual sex or rape, it can prevent the woman from
becoming pregnant and bearing that burden involuntarily.

Thought Talk: Does war play a role in establishing peace? Salon 5 & 6

War is perhaps considered to be the final resolution of all disagreement. In an ideal war, two entities fight
each other until one of them wins and assumes power over the other, after which all conflict has been
settled and there is no longer anything on which to disagree. But today war has molded into a more
abstract object. There is no longer necessarily one concrete winner, and motivations on both sides can be
questionable. Take for example the war on terrorism. It is certainly a war on some standards, in that there
is fighting and death, but both parties and their goals are much less defined. Is there, or will there ever be
a clear victory that will lead to a time of peace? By now most Americans would say that the war in
Afghanistan has not been whatsoever beneficial to the security of the United States, and the thousands of
troops that have died and continue to die do not indicate an end in the near future. There are however
wars, such as each of the world wars, that have ended clearly and with a resolution of peace. How then is
fighting necessary to resolve conflict, if it is at all?

Political Compass Chicago-Dallas
Led By: Grant Crater (John Burroughs)
Undecided on what your political affiliation is? Answer questions about current and politically charged
events and issues to help you navigate across the room to determine where you stand on issues compared

to your peers! This activity will help you figure out which political party you are best suited for, as well as
with you are not.

Model UN Simulation: Gender Rights in the Middle East Atlanta-Boston
In this Model UN Simulation, we will be discussing the rights of women in the Middle East, specifically
countries such as Iran and Syria that are known to have strict, punitive views toward women’s rights. We
will be undergoing a Model UN simulation, therefore we will have country policy and stances on this
topic, be given out during this activity – and delegates will have for the duration of this block to discuss
solutions based on their respective country policy. No prior research is needed; however, if delegates wish
to have prior research done beforehand, they are welcomed to do so! If you want to know more about
international relations and diplomacy, come partake in this simulation!


Chaperone Feedback Meeting (Optional) New York
Teachers and advisors, if you wish to come and have any questions, please come to this meeting where we
will be discussing issues related to Fall State and JSA in general.

Lunch 12:30 PM – 1:25 PM
Grab a quick bite to eat, but be sure to make it back in time for the next block!

Block VII 1:30 PM – 2:20 PM
Debate: Assault Rifles Salon 1
Moderator: Juan Jose Vega (Bell Gardens)
Pro: Sean Farhat (Corona Del Mar)
Con: Shaun Flood (Santiago)
Resolved, that Congress pass a ban on the sale and possession of assault rifles.
The 2nd Amendment, which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” has been interpreted by the
Supreme Court to protect the possession of “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” but “that the
Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes.” Since this interpretation in 1939, a plethora of court cases have ruled that it validates the
ban of some types of weapons, leading up to a federal assault weapons ban in 1994. In the ten years it
remained enacted, the ban was never brought before the Supreme Court to be challenged by the 2nd
Amendment. Recently, a movement to reenact the Congressional ban; the white house stated following
the tragic shooting in Aurora that it generally supports a federal assault weapons ban, and Congress has
been called to reinstate the law by the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. However, gun-
rights advocates protest that federal legislature would not have prevented recent shootings, essentially,
that “gun’s don’t kill people, people kill people.” Also, to nationally ban assault weapons would essentially
disable any non-governmental militia from effective protection or confrontation. Proponents of gun-rights
contend that this would violate the 2nd Amendment, which they argue was enacted to ensure that the
government would never have a monopoly of force it could use to oppress its citizens. Should such

Fall State LA Agenda 2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (17)

Fall State LA Agenda 2012