- [Advertiser] Production and distribution of city club forums and idea stream are made possible by the generous support of PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

(upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to the city club of Cleveland.

Hello, my name is Tom Lucchesi and I'm a partner at the law firm of Baker and Hostetler.

Baker and Hostetler has been involved with the city clubs since the city clubs inception in 1912.

In fact, our founding partner Newton D. Baker was a participant in the very first forum ever hosted by the City Club.

Today, we are especially proud to partner with the City Club in connection with the 2021 High School Debate Championship.

We partner with the City Club, today in honor of our late partner, Patrick Jordan.

Pat was a brilliant lawyer.

He was a Championship High School Debater.

Went to high school at St. Ignatius.

He died in 1995 at the age of 37, leaving behind his wife Sharon Sobol Jordan and his 18 month old daughter Anne.

We miss Pat.

We miss Pat every day.

He was a wonderful lawyer, as I said a Championship Debater and a fantastic human being.

Pat was a larger than life figure.

And we wanted to keep Pats memory alive for our own sake and the sake of his family.

And we've done so by sponsoring this debate.

Pat, as I said was a brilliant lawyer.

He was a championship debater himself and he loved to argue.

He loved to win.

And for you youngsters in the audience youngsters participating in debate, you don't realize this but back in the day, there was no Google.

There was no internet.

There was no way to find out the answers to life's serious questions like which baseball player had the most hits or which, you know, we, we argued about everything.

Pat loved to argue.

He loved to win.

And the defining character of Pat was not only his argumentative style and his desire to win, but his respect for his opponents.

And I've told this story before and I'll tell it every year until we stop doing this or until I die, whichever comes first.

I call it the story of Joe.

When Pat was a lawyer, a young lawyer with our firm, he had to negotiate with a man named Joe who owned a restaurant and he was negotiating to take over the restaurant's business.

The restaurant was located in a, in a building where I am right now where the Key Towers in downtown Cleveland Ohio.

And Key Tower was being built and all the businesses that were on this site had to be raised.

The buildings were raised, the businesses were had to move elsewhere and Pat negotiated with a man named Joe for several months to buy out the remaining lease that Joe had for his active restaurant business.

And it was emotional for Joe.

It was emotional for Pat representing our client and things got heated.

The parties went back and forth.

We were of course trying to get a low value.

The restaurant owner named Joe was trying to get a high value.

And they fought bitterly.

They, they, argued, they called each other names even.

It was, it was a, a long protracted debate if you will over the value of the restaurant.

And at the end, they reached an agreement.

They shook hands and they became lifelong friends.

And that tells you everything you need to know about Pat.

He was able to argue his points.

He was able to win if you will by getting a good resolution.

And he respected his opponent.

And as I said they became lifelong friends until the day Pat died.

I still see Joe on a regular basis.

He runs a restaurant in The Old Arcade or not in The Old Arcade, but across the street.

And he is a wonderful man and he thinks very highly of Pat to this day, many years later.

And that is a trait respecting your opponent arguing on the merits not necessarily name-calling but arguing on the merits and respecting your opponent and living with the results of your of your debate or your argument at the end of the day.

And that's something that's sorely missing in today's political climate.

And I would ask the adults that are participating or that are watching this to take a lesson from the kids today these high school kids that are young adults themselves that are setting a good example for how to debate, how to respect each other how to follow the rules and how to abide by the results whether you win or whether you lose.

So with that welcome, enjoy the process.

Good luck to both of our debaters today.

And I will turn this over.

Turn the microphone over to Dan Moulthrop from The City Club.

Thank you.

- Thank you, Tom.

We appreciate the support and partnership of BakerHostelter over these last 100 years.

I'm Dan Moulthrop, CEO of The City Club and a proud member and I'm pleased to join Tom in introducing the 2021 High School Debate Championship.

This is a unique moment for us.

As Tom said, for more than 30 years we've hosted the High School Debate Championship.

It's a competition of local debaters and they work on this for months.

Last year, this event was the last one we actually convened in person before we moved to entirely digital programming.

This year, we're presenting it online and over the airwaves as it's really important for us to preserve this opportunity for these two incredible young people.

We thank you for joining us today whether it's via our live stream or radio broadcast and to cheer on our students to be inspired by their intellects and perhaps be encouraged by their dedication and their resilience.

Today's debate represents the final round of competition for the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association.

This event, along with the high school programming coordinated by the Youth Forum Council is a big part of your City Club's continuing commitment to youth in our communities.

With the support of the community, the City Club also makes it possible for more than 2000 students to attend forums for free every year.

The two young people debating this afternoon will engage in the style of what's known as Lincoln-Douglas debate.

The purpose of Lincoln Douglas debate is to examine morals and value based questions posed by current public policy issues.

Rather than focusing on the practical implications of these policies.

Lincoln Douglas debate asks the debaters to take a more philosophical look at the question.

Both debaters will focus on a value which they believe should be prioritized and the criteria by which that value can be measured, in addition to providing evidence and analysis in support of their arguments.

Both debaters will have equal time to present a constructive speech in support of their argument and a cross-examination to question their opponent as well as opportunity for rebuttal.

If your school or student is interested in participating in speech and debate at the middle school or high school level, you should reach out to us and we can connect you with the teachers and coaches that can help you to make that happen.

Our championship today will be evaluated by a panel of three judges: Berea-Midapark Debate Coach Ryan Peoples, Ohio Speech and Debate Association Advisor Vicki Balzar and Huntington Bank Senior Vice President and Managing Director and City Club Board member Artists A. Arnold III.

Our finalists are two of the finest High School Debaters that Greater Cleveland has produced during the school year.

Both students have qualified to compete at the National Speech and Debate Association's National Tournament in June.

Let me introduce them: They're Chagrin Falls junior Sophia Avery, coached by Corinne Midlik and Hawken Senior Soren Palencik coached by Robert Shurtz.

And, now let me introduce the resolution for today's debate.

It's a topic we actually touched on at another recent City Club forum.

Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal childcare.

We flipped a coin a few moments ago and Soren Palencik will begin with the affirmative side and Sophia Avery will take the negative position.

Debaters, welcome to you and good luck.

- Hi, thank you.

Just to start, I'd like to give a short thank you to BakerHostetler for sponsoring this debate, as well as the City Clubs for hosting.

Apologise for any possible technical issues that might happen or have already happened.

But assuming everyone's ready, I'm just going to go ahead and begin with the affirmative constructive, starting in one moment, starting now.

I affirm resolved: the United States ought to guarantee universal childcare because the resolution is a question of what policies the government owes the people, I value justice the fine is giving each their due because each familiar actor has their certain duties and rights based on their place in the family.

The value criteria is promoting familial rights which has two pillars: First child rights.

Children especially young children are entitled to complete provision of basic necessities and basic socialization, such that they are prepared to enter the school system.

Second, parental rights.

Parents are entitled to have autonomy and independence from their child insofar as the basic necessities of the child are meant.

To be just the government must preserve conditions that promote adjust family structure for two reasons.

First, the family is the building block of society.

Because the family creates and develops the next generation, in order to maintain itself the state must respect the structure of the family.

Second, legal protection.

Especially in a parent child relationship, which is naturally dependent on an equal, any government that expects rights fulfillment must legally guarantee it to be successful.

Intentional one, child rights.

Because children do not have fully developed autonomy, they are entitled to have their basic material and social needs met through childcare.

Therefore, regardless of whether they're used or not they must inherently be given the tools to be given their rights.

Unless you want to affirm, regardless of any consequences to uphold the inherency of rights.

However, implementing universal childcare also enables physical benefits for children in three ways: Sub point A Adoption.

Adoption is one of the most common outcomes for children born into poor families.

According to the U.S. department of health and human services in 2020 there are about 1.5 million adopted children in the U.S. And adopted Center of America in 2019 furthers that 29% of children put up for adoptions, will spend at least three years in foster care.

Roughly 20,000 children annually never find a family through adoption.

Being stuck in foster care has detrimental impacts.

According to the Child Welfare League of America in 2020 50% of children in foster care will never graduate from high school or (indistinct) D. And furthermore, after aging out of the system 25% of foster teens experience homelessness.

Luckily universal childcare can help to solve this.

According to the American Adoptions Organization in 2020, to raise a child, a person must be prepared to pay for childcare.

Roughly 70% of parents who placed their children in the adoption system do so hoping adoptive parents are more prepared for this cost.

Because universal childcare offers free resources like food and medical care to children and frees up time for parents to work, It will reduce the financial strain on families thus reducing the adoption rate and providing basic rights.

Sub-point B, Neglect.

For those children born into poor families who are not placed into the foster care system.

They still face the physical risk of poverty.

Elizabeth (indistinct) in 2019 (indistinct) three quarters of child maltreatment cases are related to neglect which is most often the result of poverty.

However, childcare can help to reduce the rates of neglect by providing adequate resources and most consistent supervision.

According to the new England Journal of Medicine in 2018, the U.S. has 20,000 children in 2016 and 60% of these children died due to preventable injuries due to lack of supervision.

Thus, in order to provide children with their basic right to bodily safety we have to give them access to safe and well-equipped places through universal childcare.

Sub-point C is education.

Even for children not put up for adoption and well-off enough that they do not face neglect.

They're still susceptible to falling behind academically.

According to the Center on Children and Families in 2018, 48% of poor or middle income children are ready for school, age five, compared to 75% of well-off children.

Due to their mother's propensity to be poorly educated have higher rates of depression or poor health.

However, universal childcare can help by giving children exposure to broader vocabularies from their peers and access to materials like books and music.

The National Institute of Health finds that children who receive childcare before entering kindergarten had better vocab scores in the fifth grade than children who did not and were (indistinct) furthers that on average society sees a return of $7 for every $1 invested in early childhood education.

And government funded childcare is inherently the best tool for learning because according to the center for American progress in 2019 it works to align preschool programs with the (indistinct) educational continuum.

Such that children transition seamlessly between preschool and kindergarten.

Because universal childcare prevents harmful adoption experiences.

It promotes child rights and reduces the chances that children are neglected or receive poor education, you have to affirm.

Contention 2, Parental Rights.

After a parent has fulfilled their duties, no parent has the obligation to be tied to their children for all hours of the day, and to sacrifice their autonomy.

Thus, regardless of the practical impact of such a program the state first and foremost, has the obligation to universally provide the right to parental autonomy.

Luckily universal childcare does have positive practical impacts as well.

Morrissey 17 of the review of economics of the household turns a 10% reduction in the price of childcare would lead to an 11% increase in maternal employment.

When parents have the option for universal childcare they have more autonomy in the professional lives.

And as thus can choose to pursue educational or employment opportunities, thus, there are two impacts.

First childcare allows single mothers to access the workforce.

According to Farrell 13 of the center for American progress single mothers are nearly 40% more likely to meet employment over two years in those who did not have help paying for childcare.

Employment for single mothers is critical.

Not only because they are most at risk for not being able to adequately provide to their children, but also because women have an inherent right to equality in the workplace.

As the building block of a stable family is a job providing time to do a job is essential.

And second, children, childcare permits children to pursue or parents to pursue higher education (Indistinct) in 20 of the Hechinger report finds that parents who use childcare and higher persistence rates from one fall semester to the next.

68% to 51%.

In the long-term universal childcare is the best way to cement parental for rights.

Brady in 2012, concludes that universal programs become defined as citizenship, entitlements or rights.

And thus subsequently becomes difficult to fund a comeback, attaching normative expectations to family rights and thus guaranteeing them.

Thus because universal childcare promotes a just family structure by protecting the rights of children and parents by reducing financial hardships, neglect and increasing education for children and improving employment opportunities for parents.

I affirm and I'm ready to cross - If all of my judges and my opponent is ready for cross, then we can begin.

All right.

It seems like everyone set.

All right.

So firstly, how does the government measure the extent to which we've promoted familial structures?

- Sure, so I think the first way is by making sure that children have their basic adequate needs met.

So I talked about this very well.

I say that they need to have access to shelter.

- Yeah, sure.

But like specifically within like family structures how do we measure like the extent to which you've upheld a family structure?

- Well, I think I sort of pointed out there.

I mean, our children being given access to their most fundamental rights do parents have the opportunity to pursue an equal and fair chance in the workplace?

If the answer is yes, then we've achieved it.

- Sure, so those are those two components of family rights.

It's basically just saying kids have their basic needs and parents have autonomy.

- Right.

- All right, perfect.

So you talked to me a lot in your case about the benefits of early childhood education.

So how do you link into quality through a universal program?

- Sure.

So I think the first point would be that we don't necessarily have to have super high quality childcare at a young age because the main way in which our link into this is by saying that they meet people from different backgrounds and thus get exposed to higher vocabulary and basic things like books.

- So like social integration is the link to like why universal childcare is going to be better.

- Sure, but also things like books and music that are housed at day cares and preschools are really effective even if maybe the curriculum isn't the best.

- Okay.

So should a government implement a policy just because the curriculum, like if the curriculum isn't the best.

- I mean, I think that the government ought to implement the policy that best guarantees a universal rights to education and that sort of stuff.

- Okay, sure.

But we're talking about like what kids are doing.

Right, you're telling me kids should have all of their basic needs met and parents should have autonomy.

So why does just giving people the bare bones like, well, it's better than nothing.

Why should a government implement a policy like that?

- Well, I mean, I think that the preschool program will probably be similar to the public school education system.

I'm all for it.

- Well, let's talk about the public education systems.

And do we see like widespread quality within those programs?

- I mean, I would say it's far better than an alternatives, nothing.

And we should also improve these systems once they've already become universal rather than the other way around.

- Have we seen that in the public system?

- Like I think the public school system has improved over time in terms of its results, sure.

- So there's not like large educational disparities in the current educational system.

- I mean, of course, (cross talk) - Like can you outline specific steps that we've taken to rectify some of those disparities?

- Well, I mean, there's been an increase in educational funding over the years.

Like if you start at the beginning with U.S. history but I think the point here that I'm making is it's far better to have something rather than nothing.

- I mean, we can get to that (mumbles) So you talked to me about adoption, right?

So your link into this is just childcare is going to be cheaper.

- Yeah, because it's like affordable for everyone.

It's universal.

- Okay,so how do we finance like a universal plan for childcare?

- We'll probably be done based off of like taxation and the government budget.

- Okay, that's about cross.

I'll run some prep time.

- I'm Dan Moulthrop, Chief Executive at the City Club of Cleveland and you're listening to the City Club, Friday forum.

It's our high school debate championship.

You just heard Sophia Avery Jr. at Chagrin Falls, High School, cross-examining Soren Palencik Senior at Hawken.

And the topic, the topic has to do with the right to universal childcare, the resolve, the United States ought to guarantee universal childcare.

With me to talk about what's happening.

And what you're hearing is Nick Costell.

He's a reporter at WCPN idea stream.

Nick thanks so much for joining us.

I am struck by what a timely debate this actually is.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, even today and over the past few weeks as Congress has been debating what should go into this $1.9 trillion stimulus package?

You know, we, we hear this debate about the universal or at least a child tax credit making the amount of money the government provides for families with children, more generous.

You're hearing it, not just from the democratic side either right now, although, you know Democrats are the ones pushing and supporting this bill but you've also heard it from folks like Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah who also proposed a, a child, you know government support for families with kids.

So, I mean, this is right in the middle of the news right now.

- The argument that Soren was making can you sort of break down a little bit?

I said, I outlined at the very beginning of the of the program, how these debates this Lincoln Douglas style of debate work he talks about values and criterion and these very sort of technical debate language.

Unpack that for us a little bit.

- Yeah, so what really is supposed to be at the heart of your argument in this event is, is, you know pointing to some kind of universal value like justice or or truth, you know, really lodging your argument in this sort of foundational idea of something that we all value as a society.

So you're not necessarily making a political argument saying, Hey, we should do this because it's politically popular and we will win the next election if we do.

You're really trying to root your argument in, in an idea of universal values that gives it maybe what you might see as like some philosophical bedrock to the policy proposal that you're putting forward.

- Sort of Jeffersonian inalienable rights.

Right, exactly.

And into, to summarize, it seemed as though, I mean he was basically anchoring his argument in justice and in this idea that this is a more just future or a more just policy.

- Yeah, exactly.

And that's why you hear in the cross-examination these questions of how do you define that?

Are you sure that this is really supporting the argument that you're making?

You know, you're not necessarily just gonna go out there and say, oh, you're wrong.

I disagree with you.

You've got to say, but is your argument really holding true to the values that you say you espouse?

- You know, I I'm glad you brought up the cross-examination too, because I was struck that while that it's really kind of a model of civility although it's not sort of sort of the kind of civility that would just that allows for the other person to just keep talking.

I mean, Sophia interrupted Soren a number of times but there is this kind of like, I'm interrupting you but it's really about trying to understand your argument better.

- Yeah, exactly.

And, you know, honestly it sounds like a good interviewing technique too.

You're not just letting the the person you're interviewing vamp or, or, you know continue talking, but you're jumping in to say but what do you mean by that?

How do you define that?

Right, you're really asking them to support their argument.

- And I'm going to jump in right now so we can get back to the debate itself.

So now the next thing you'll hear is Sophia Avery offering her argument in the negative.

- All right.

So before I jump into the negative construct you constructed just a few quick thank you's, firstly, a big thank you to the City Club of Cleveland and Baker and Hostetler for this event.

I watch the City Club debates every year, the freshmen and it's so cool to actually be here.

My coaches (indistinct) and Corinne Midlik and my debate team for all of their support getting here.

So, done with a thank you's out of the way the order for this speech is just going to be firstly reading and presenting my negative case and then responding to Soren's case.

So if all of my judges are ready and everyone is set, then I'll begin, now.

I negate the resolve: The United States ought to guarantee universal childcare.

The value of utmost importance is justice defined as each receiving their due.

Thus the necessary criteria is mitigating structural violence.

Structural violence occurs when certain groups are disadvantaged by political, legal, economic or cultural barriers.

We should look to helping those least advantaged before looking to help others.

And framing this round.

I observed that this debate is not comparing a world with universal childcare to the status quo.

As a country we have the capabilities to implement many different types of childcare forms to the current system.

The debate today provides, presides over whether a universal approach specifically is the right one.

My sole argument is that a universal approach to childcare reform deepens barriers that disadvantaged children face.

There's three core reasons for this.

The first is socioeconomic segregation, universal childcare perpetuates economic inequality through the early segregation of young children based on class.

Extensive segregation by social class was found in many different UCC programs, Norway, New York and Germany to name a few.

Even when strict standards and regulations were applied in these experiments no program achieved diversity.

Socioeconomic segregation concentrates, poor children, and lower quality schools.

Universality does not mean that schools are treated uniformly.

The us department of education found that over 40% of low-income public schools didn't get a fair share of state and local funding.

There's no reason that a UCC would see a divergence from this trend.

In fact, a study from university of (indistinct) provides an empirical basis that even in universal childcare programs with strict regulations there were large disparities in quality of education.

This leads not only to poor quality education but poor kids are disproportionately impacted due to segregation.

Ultimately poor quality early childhood programs will accomplish the opposite of their goals and exacerbate risk to disadvantage children.

The early childhood action collective describes how low quality childcare harms cognitive development exposes kids to serious emotional and physical hazards including reports as reports of abuse and safety violations and fails to solve achievement gaps that trapped disadvantaged kids in poverty.

The second reason is that universal standards ignore the unique needs of disadvantaged families.

There are two reasons for this.

First the U. S. Bureau of labor statistics purports that one fifth of employed Americans work non-standard, non-standard hours and low income and racial minorities are even more likely to be included in that group compared to others.

Because the Washington Center for Equitable Growth points to non-standard work hours as a major factor preventing families from enrolling their children in pre-care.

A universal program would fail to help the disadvantage groups that struggle with childcare the most.

Second, universal one size fits all curriculum standards and pre-care programs will disregard the needs of disadvantaged kids.

The hedging (indistinct) report describes that universally implemented standards such as common core increased achievement gaps as low-income special needs and students of color disproportionately failed under these standards.

Universal quality, standards exclude any students with unique learning needs or different cultural backgrounds creating systems that just allow upper and middle-class white students to succeed perpetuates inequality moreover affiliates Elliott of the Associated Press discusses that the United States has a precedent of ignoring schools that fail to meet regulations and standards with no consequences or interventions allowing at-risk students to slip through the cracks.

Lastly, a universal childcare program would take away resources and political capital necessary for childcare reforms that would be more effective at addressing the problems we face.

Palsy Analysts, SAML Policy Analyst, Samuel Hamad describes that child allowances, direct transfers of money to parents in need, is one of the most effective ways at cutting child poverty and improving developmental outcomes.

As evidenced by over 20 countries, allowances to parents are more effective than a universal approach.

As parents often know what's better for their children than the government does and can harness their localized knowledge of their communities to meet specific needs.

Thus, I strongly negate.

Now moving onto Soren's case.

So we agree on the value of justice but we differ on the belly criterion.

He says that we should value promoting familial rights.

Firstly, sure.

This is important, but there's a lot of other priorities we need to solve first in order to like ensure that all children have their baseline needs.

The structural barriers that prevent like students of color, or low income students from actually achieving like these baseline needs that my opponent says are so important.

So first you're gonna prefer my framework because that gives you an actual way that we can achieve like familial structures here.

So my framework is a prerequisite before we can do anything else talking about parental autonomy or child rights.

So on my opponents first contention my opponent talks to you about children's rights.

And on his first point, he talks about adoption here.

So this whole argument is predicated on the idea that childcare is going to be really expensive.

And if we make it more accessible then more people are going to be able to access it.

Two points to this.

Firstly looked at Perez 19, where I talk about in case which specifically tells you that some of the major barriers preventing low-income families from accessing childcare are non-standard work hours.

So you're still not solving for one fifth of the population that one fifth of employed Americans that aren't going to be able to access these programs.

But then in addition (indistinct) 14, tells you that UCC is not cost beneficial and it likely wouldn't be able to pay for itself meaning that the cost wouldn't actually be better for families.

Has 15 tells you that no middle income or upper class children had any substantial gains under UCC programs, and therefore neither of these groups generated generated benefits that offset the costs.

The way we would be paying for this program is essentially through human capital.

But if you don't see any returns on human capital you're not going to see this program be able to pay for itself.

Therefore, my opponent loses his link into accessibility.

The most cost effective solution is support resources into groups that would actually see benefits that offset the cost such as low income children, but moving onto my opponents sub-point B, he talks about neglect.

So the first response here comes from (indistinct) 21 that tells you that the childcare field under COVID-19 has led to COVID-19 has caused structural collapse within the childcare field.

In that ramp up would be extremely difficult.

So if we try and increase the number of children in classrooms under a universal program, by what millions then we'd see overcrowding of classrooms, overcrowding disproportionately harms low-income and minority students that are more likely to slip through the cracks when they don't have supervision.

So we see that this turns against my opponent because overcrowded classrooms increase your ability to like neglect children.

But second Sanders and Thompson specifically tell you that universal childcare programs have a unique propensity to increase cases of abuse because of that overcrowding problem.

We specifically see that childcare is not the way to do this or at least a universal approach isn't the way we solve this issue.

On my opponent's sub-point C he talks about education readiness.

The first point here, he talks about social integration and cross remember socioeconomic segregation takes out all of those warrants.

But secondly could cost you a 15 a meta analysis looking at 34 different studies of universal childcare spanning across 10 different countries found that there were all of the benefits of like educational benefits of early childhood education programs.

And universal approaches were completely eliminated before in kindergarten.

And this was a Meta Analysis.

So there's no education readiness.

On the second condition, looked at Vandal a one that tells you all of his impacts about parents turn because parents don't want to send their children to low quality childcare, but then low income women don't actually support this program.

And two-thirds of women would rather work part-time than work full-time.

So if you want to respect parental autonomy, then you simply won't use this program.

For all these reasons, I strongly negate.

- So my opponent and all the judges already reprocess.

And I'll just go ahead and start now.

So my first question is do you think parents, and especially as mothers have the inherent right to work, if they wish - I would say if they wish, right but we shouldn't be forcing people to like go into the workforce if they have no propensity for that.

So like under a universal childcare program like two thirds of mothers would rather work part-time or stay at home with their children.

Like we have specific studies showing that but if you take away all other options and say you can either join this program or you have no childcare you're forcing people into that, like option.

- Well, it isn't a universal program of choice.

Can't they just choose to using a (indistinct) or not.

But in your world, there's something - If your options are limited between like poverty or working full time then you don't really have a choice there.

We see through like childcare allowances or things like that.

We actually provide parents with the full autonomy to make decisions in regards to what they want to do with their childcare.

Parents are better at parenting than the government is.

- Sure, so I wanna talk really quickly about this observation that you read.

So do you have any counter policy that would be better than a universal childcare?

- So I give you, my third reason is specifically talking about like child allowances and how that's specifically better than you you're so pro a universal program and how if we were to have a universal childcare program that would take away political capital and resources necessary to implement a plan like this.

- Sure, so like, do you have any evidence to suggest that this would actually get passed in a negative world?

- Yeah.

So again, this is like an LD debate.

We're just talking about moral obligations.

You're telling me why we're morally obligated to implement your program.

I'm telling you this program is more effective.

Therefore the moral obligation lies and not negating the resolution not implementing a universal approach in order to preserve resources and political capital for this.

- Well, couldn't, you just simply say that if you don't have any burden to prove that your negative world would actually happen couldn't you just say that you'd pass a policy that would give $12 billion to every single person in the world and you don't need to prove that it would actually happen.

- I feel like we're going in circles and this really isn't relevant, right?

Because I never asked for like a five-step plan on like how we're going to implement universal childcare.

Right, I'm just showing you that the moral obligation to implement the most effective policy that will best help our kids and especially best help.

The most disadvantaged kids exists in my world and not yours.

- Okay, are people segregated in the status quo?

Like when it comes to - Yeah, sure.

I tell you that universal childcare like drastically increases that in magnitude because we're concentrating children in the bad schools.

- So why did universal childcare make that worse?

- Yeah, so universal childcare and uniquely concentrates children in these areas, like if we had a childcare allowance, right?

Parents could choose like childcare providers but when we concentrate kids in low-income schools or we concentrate disadvantaged kids in schools that are going to receive disproportionate amounts of funding, the impacts of that are compounded onto them.

And now not only do you have bad access to childcare but you are like, your social circumstances are defining what kind of quality of education you actually get - It doesn't universal.

Universal childcare just involves building daycare center.

So couldn't parents still choose which daycare centers they want to send their kids to.

- Yeah, so again, like we're not super talking about implementation here but I show you in like three different studies like every single time that's happened.

So I give you like a U.S. specific example u.s. Norway and Germany.

We also saw segregation.

So with likely not going to be solved it's going to be worse into, by UCC.

- Okay.

Thank you.

I'm just going to ahead and start prep time now.

- You're with the City Club Friday forum.

I'm Dan Moulthrop and we're listening to our high school debate championship.

That was Soren Palencik of Hawkens School Cross-examining Sophia Avery of Chagrin Falls High school.

As I said, I'm Dan Moulthrop here with Nick Costell, a reporter at idea stream and our our sort of Senior High School Debate Correspondent.

(Nick laughs) Nick help us understand exactly kind of where we are in the debate right now.

- Sure, so we've just heard the the negative argument followed by the cross examination.

So, you know what Sophia Avery had been trying to do was present, you know, the basically point out the weaknesses in Soren Palencik's argument to say, Hey, this doesn't line up.

Specifically trying to zero in on, you know where might his argument not actually support what we talked about before that value criteria and that idea of justice for families and the family structure.

So you can see, she's trying to say, Hey his argument does not hold true to the foundation.

He's trying to build it on.

And then he comes through with the, the cross-examination here where he's trying to basically pick away at her rebuttal and find weaknesses in her counter argument.

And that's where you start to hear them debating.

Well, are we really talking about whether this is a policy that could say pass Congress or are we really talking about universal values here which is sort of the heart of Lincoln Douglas debate?

- It's interesting that the debate has gone to, that Sophia's argument is sort of this libertarian argument saying, you know we should leave it up to the people to decide how they spend these resources.

We should sort of give them the resources and and leave it up to them.

And, and she's sort of taken a stand there as opposed to kind of stepping back further to kind of whether or not universal childcare is, you know, caring for children generally is something we want to provide.

- Well, I think you heard her say that a little bit at the beginning of her argument, but then you're right.

She did seem to embrace this idea of, well maybe a voucher would be better than parents could choose you know, where they want to, to use it.

Same debates you hear in, in education as as folks debate school vouchers versus, you know district based public schools.

I mean, we hear these debates in the real world too.

- I am really struck by the fact that this is basically a philosophical followup to the forum we had last Friday about the childcare crisis facing Ohio right now.

- You may need to fill me in on that one.

I I'll confess I wasn't following it, but but you're right, that this is, you know these are often topics that are, are right in the news, they are, are very much linked to what we're all debating in, in the real world as well.

I mean, so these are not just we might call them philosophical arguments because they're based in these ideas of values but they're also very topical.

We, and we'll have to, I'll have to fill you in later.

I think Soren is ready to to re-engage.

Soren put the next voice you'll hear is Soren Palencik of Hawken.

- Hi, So a quick off-time roadmap I will just be responding to my opponent's case and then I will move on to defending my own case.

So assuming everyone's ready, I will begin now.

So we agreed that the value in today's round is justice.

However, when it comes to the value criteria and I disagree with my opponents of mitigating structural oppression.

First off, I'd say that her idea here is vague.

She basically tells us that we ought to be helping those for at least well off.

But what does it actually mean to help someone I'd say it means giving them rights.

And we do this by providing universal rights to everyone in so far as those people who are disadvantaged in society right now, are those people without rights by providing universal rights we help the worst off inherently.

So you should prefer my framework.

And let's talk about this observation that she runs.

First off, recognize that she doesn't actually give you a reason in which how we can compare these two worlds.

Debate is all about comparing worlds.

So often we compare a world with UCC to a world in which we don't know exists.

We should compare the status quo to a world with UCC.

And secondly, the OSDA themselves lists in the rule book that a neg world has to argue for a probable policy.

So if my opponent can argue that if we don't affirm if we wait and you'll pass the UCC we will be able to pass this direct funding policy.

Then we can go ahead and negate but she doesn't give you any of his art evidence.

She just suggests that possibly it could happen.

And that's not sufficient to negate.

Let's move to convention One about sub-point A.

So she talks about segregation.

First off, according to Colin in 2013 the status quo was even worse because right now rich people decided to send their people to private centers and other people don't get to send them to any daycare centers at all.

And that leads to far more segregation and far more problems.

But then secondly,(indistinct) Johnson in 2019 we actually result in less segregation because we allow people to go to the specific daycare center that they liked.

This just involves building a lot of daycare centers.

So poor people can choose to go to wherever they like and empirically it led to far less.

And then also the last response is the notion that it's far more important to provide the people to make sure that people have their basic rights met.

Remember that even basic care is enough to stop neglect.

All we need is these people to be supervised but then I'm disappointed about disadvantaged disadvantaged people.

Crown in 2019 says the reason as to why the majority of people actually have weird hours is because of childcare itself.

The reason why all of these people have to work weird hours is because it's the only way they can take care of their children and work a job.

But we solve for this problem inside of an app world where everyone gets universal childcare.

And secondly, chef in 2020 found that empirically when this program was introduced they simply had at night hours.

And so what it was most effective for the disadvantaged children who got to use these programs.

And then sub-point C, first off she has no evidence to suggest that this could be passed.

Then secondly, recognized that a UCC generates $7 for every $1 we spend, I read through that inside of my affirmative case, but we're going to Nicola in 2019.

And that's really important because it means we get paid for this program on top of a UCC anyway, and third it's important to have universal programs because people fall through the cracks.

Let's move to the other side of the case.

First off in response to framework I think I've clearly shown you that it is not a prerequisite, the only way in which we can help the least advantaged by giving them rights and convention one please extend the point that we actually give people inherent rights.

Inherently people are, due rights.

And if we don't give those rights legally, they will fall through the cracks and we will not be provided.

This is why universal programs are necessary.

But then on the convention one she sort of size argue about non-standard work hours.

I think I've already explained to you why non-standard work hours are a non-issue and are actually solved in an affirmative world.

But then she says, it's not cost beneficial but pool in 2019 say as we generate $700 billion and remember how I call you we get $7 in for every $1 that we are $7 out for every $1 you put in.

Then she says, COVID 19.

And she talks about abuse and overcrowding.

First off COVID is short term, second Kosaki 2014 can actually be opposite happens.

There's less overcrowding in our world because we actually have to consume the government has to construct more childcare centers in my world rather than the other world where there are just a small number of private care centers.

But then secondly, recognize that we're going to provide fundamental rights to people.

So even if the, even if the childcare centers aren't as great as they could be, all they need is supervision.

This reduces neglect by 75%.

Then you can cross apply the notion that we will have independently great standards when it comes to education.

And that all we need is a basic level of care.

She also tries to say that we're going to eliminate all of the benefits and that only two-thirds of parents are actually working.

However you want to extend the notion of contention to that.

According to brilliant 2012 it's far higher to cut a program and it's universal.

And then if women can work, it will solve back for all of the other issues when it comes to not being able to pay for their childcare.

That's high for him.

- That's Soren Palencik, he is a senior at Hawken school debating here at the City Club.

It's the City Club Friday forum with a Live High School Debate.

They are debating the, the resolution resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal childcare.

I'm Dan Moulthrop with Nick Costell, Ideas Stream reporter.

Nick right now we're sort of at the second half of the debate.

And I was really struck by this one thing that happens particularly during the cross exam that this debate happens without a moderator.

- Yeah, you're absolutely right.

This is perhaps unusual for the general audience who are used to seeing a moderator especially last year, trying to get in between two presidential candidates and get them to stop talking over each other.

But here we have, you know, the students the debaters themselves, not just, you know, managing the the actual interaction in that cross-examination but managing their own time too trying to stay within the rules.

You know, it really is sort of a Mark of civility and, you know, is is maybe something that's kind of inspirational in a way.

- And we should point out too, that the, the debaters in addition to communicating directly with our audience they are also communicating directly to three judges who they're trying to convince.

- Yeah, exactly, right.

And so they're, they're talking to those judges, letting them know, for instance we heard earlier, you know, Soren Palencik saying I'm going to give you a roadmap for my argument here just to kind of give the judges a sense of where he's going to go so that they can follow him.

The thing about trying to win a Lincoln Douglas debate is you're not necessarily trying to convince the judges that you're right or get them to agree with you.

You're trying to convince them that you have made the best argument that your case has been well-stated without holes or flaws.

- We're going to go back now to the debates.

Sophia Avery of Chagrin Falls High school is arguing in the negative.

- So with that, the order of this last negative speech is going to be firstly going over the framework of today's round looking firstly at the negative case, moving on to Soren's case and then giving some key voting issues as to why the negative one today's round.

If my judges and everyone else is all set, then I'll begin now.

So firstly, let's look at the framework or how we're going to evaluate today's round.

Remember on the value criteria, promoting familial rights.

I give you the response that how do we actually do this across the board?

Like if you want to ensure that every single child has baseline rights you first need to solve for structural barriers that prevent certain groups of children from actually getting these rights.

And my opponent doesn't respond to this point.

He just says that my value criteria is big.

And I don't tell you what we're actually helping.

So I tell you specifically the Do's and both of our worlds are the same.

We wanna give kids their rights.

But remember we can't just give kids their rights across the board.

There's always going to be inequalities.

When we're talking about a policy debate we can't help everyone.

The exact same amount.

I tell you that when these inequalities occur we have to look to helping those who are most disadvantaged in society.

So my opponent doesn't respond to me, respond to that point, prefer mitigating structural violence as how we wait today's round.

But first let's look at the negative side of flow.

So on my first contention, firstly I give you an observation saying that I don't have to be defending the status quo, right?

We have many different options for how we could change our current system of childcare.

My opponent needs to prove to you why a universal system inherently is the answer to that.

And he doesn't really respond.

He basically just says the OSD rule says that this has to be like a probable policy.

I would say he hasn't given me anything to prove why a childcare allowance isn't a probable policy.

And we've seen a lot of public discourse on this.

So I would say yes, it's absolutely a probable policy actually interact with my argument instead of getting into the rules of what's fair and what's not.

So on the sub-point A, talking about socioeconomic segregation, my opponent essentially just says the status quo is going to be worse but remember I don't have to defend the status quo.

Yes, on both sides of this debate we can agree that our current childcare right now is flawed.

I tell you that a universal approach is not the answer to that.

We need to look to what is actually going to help these disadvantaged groups instead of just perpetuating these structural barriers.

My opponent says that there's going to be less segregation because we can choose J care.

But remember I give you three examples.

Large-scale examples from multiple countries where we didn't see that happen.

So if universal childcare is so great at stopping segregation why have we never seen it work ever.

In my world I clearly show you how we can help solve this through childcare allowances.

And he doesn't respond this point.

But on this sub-point B, talking about why universal standards are so bad for children.

I give you two points here.

Firstly, I tell you that non-standard work hours put specifically remove a lot of these groups from accessing childcare.

And he basically just tells you that childcare causes nonstandard hours.

I would say that this just logically doesn't make sense, right?

If I'm a low income worker and I have to work night shifts or things like that, my childcare like preferences.

aren't going to like my employer isn't going to work around my childcare employment.

Like my childcare preferences, especially if I'm a low-income worker and things like that.

So logically, this just doesn't flow, but he says essentially we can solve for this by like creating night hours and universal childcare programs.

I would say the extent to which we could do this is extremely limited.

And remember he doesn't respond to the point that there's disproportionate amount of funding in different programs.

I tell you about the most disadvantaged groups get the least amount of funding.

And that is a huge point in today's round.

So the low income families that would need these programs to actually adapt to their schedules would have the least amount of funding and then the least ability and flexibility to actually adapt to their schedule.

So we're doing the worst but then he cold drops in today's round.

My second point telling you that universal curriculum standards are really, really bad for disadvantaged kids because it allows them to fall through the cracks and perpetuate achievement gaps.

He doesn't respond to this point at all.

Only responds to my first point.

And that is huge because every time my opponent stands up and his next speech and tells you about how childcare is every child's right.

And a universal system is a must because we need to give every single child universally all of these dues.

Remember he doesn't respond to this point that these universal standards disproportionately exclude disadvantage in minority groups.

But then on the sub point C talking about childcare allowances, my point it really doesn't interact with this argument at all.

He just tells you that for every $1 we put in to early childhood education, we get $7 out.

Firstly recognize that this is not talking about universal childcare.

This is talking about early childhood education in both worlds.

We can agree universal in both worlds.

We can grade specifically that early childhood education was great.

I tell you that a universal approach to ensuring that is not going to see these benefits.

And then he doesn't actually interact with this argument telling you why allowances are better.

So you can vote for me just based off of that.

Remember, I prove that we're helping the most disadvantaged by allowing them to meet their specific needs because they know what's best for their children.

And my opponent doesn't respond to this point but on the affirmative side of the flow.

So on my opponent's first contention, firstly I reach you Perez 12 that tells you that a lot of disparities.

And specifically when we're looking at like parental hours and nonstandard hours, my opponent can't solve for one fifth of employers with non-standard hours on this point.

So one for the people aren't going to be helped by this program, but then (indistinct) 15 specifically tells you that because no upper class or middle income kids couldn't actually see any benefits from this program.

We saw no returns on political capital invest.

This wasn't a cost-effective program by pony just reads you that we saw like $700 billion in surplus.

But remember this is not specifically talking about early childhood education like a universal approach to this program.

So this is not going to be cost effective.

He loses his Lincoln a possibility.

So on neglect he basically tells you that we increase childcare.

But remember his evidence is from 2016.

And I tell you specifically that COVID-19 has ruined our childcare infrastructure.

So the point on neglect and overcrowding stamps.

On education, my opponent makes a huge drop.

Remember I read you (indistinct) 15 a meta analysis looking at 34 different universal studies across 10 different countries that found that there was no effect on childhood education.

And he basically drops the second contention telling you that there's no actual impact.

And remember this whole argument turns cause Vandal one telling you that mothers are less likely to go to work when there's low quality childcare.

So low quality childcare excludes mothers from the workforce.

So let's look at framing today's round for key voting issues.

My opponent will give you a beautiful narrative in their next speech about why early childhood education is a crucial tool for young children on this fund.

But we disagree on this point.

We can agree early childhood education is great but remember a universal approach to delivering this as flawed, remember in a meta analysis of 34 different studies, we saw that there was no actual impact of universal childcare.

And remember that 40% of low-income schools don't get disproportionate funding spreading our resources so thin over a wide area ensures that the kids who need it most will receive help the least.

So for all of these reasons, we owe it to our children to negate - That's Sophia Avery.

She is a junior at Chagrin Falls High School.

You're with the City Club, Friday forum.

It's our Annual High School Debate Championship.

I'm Dan Moulthrop, here with Nick Costell of ideas stream.

Nick we're closing in on the closing arguments.

- Yeah, that's right.

So we've, we've heard now, you know, the the negative argument here and now we will enter the the final argument here of the affirmative where Soren Palencik will get his last chance sort of did to get up and make his case one advantage of, of being the a formative is that you, the affirmative rather is that you get to talk first and last I believe.

And so there's, there's some advantage to that is you will be the last voice of the judges here.

- That is, that would seem to be a bit of an advantage.

Nick, I have no idea how the judges really will determine who the winner is.

I mean, both of these young people are incredibly articulate and and have presented very compelling arguments.

What are the judges looking for?

Well, as I understand it I think the judges are often looking for how well argued were these cases?

Did the affirmative really you know, root their argument in this universal idea of justice.

And, you know, did the negative effectively point out flaws in the affirmative's argument showing that in fact you know, it's, it's not built on a solid foundation.

So I think, you know, at the end of the day what the judges look for is was this well put, was this well argued?

Is it, you know, intellectually consistent?

Does it flow from one point to the next, you know is there sound logic laying underneath all of it?

- It's a, it, it is difficult to to judge and I throughout the whole thing.

There's these, these constructs, this effort that is made to organize the argument.

I remember at some point Sophia referenced sub point C, and I was like, what, what were A and B?

Right, and you know, if you ever watch a debater as they're listening to a debate they'll do something called flowing an argument where there'll be, you know filling out a legal pad with notes, you know, in real time trying to basically diagram and chart someone's arguments so that they can understand what is the structure of the point being made.

And, and if they're arguing the negative how can they point out holes.

- Well we're getting ready now for Soren Palencik's closing argument, here you go.

- I will be going giving sort of a framing argument about the round and then I'll give some key reasons why I'm winning and this should respond to my opponent.

So assuming everyone's ready, I will begin now.

So talking about the framework and today's round my opponent continually asks me and claims that I dropped the notion that the only way we can ensure that people could help is by helping lease law.

But I think I do give responses in the last speech.

I tell you that the only way we can actually help people and define what the word health even means is by talking about rights, because people who are disadvantaged in society inherently don't have rights.

Universal programs that provide rights to everyone are inherently good.

This response, those unresponded to threat stays round.

My opponent never tells you why we shouldn't inherently give people their rights.

But let's move on to the KBIs.

So the first KBI is the notion that inside of my opponent's world they will not have the programs that they claim they do.

This is for a couple of reasons.

First off, remember the OSD rules specifically tell you that the negative has to aggregate for a policy that is probable.

The reason for this is kind of simple.

Otherwise the negative would just say why don't we pass a policy that gives $12 billion to every single person in America.

Obviously we'd have to believe that if we don't get UCC we're going to get something better.

And my point, it really doesn't provide you any that.

Miller three 19 tells you we're not going to be expanding systems like tax credits at all.

And she doesn't give you any evidence to suggest we actually would do that.

But then secondly, even if you're going to buy that she does get hers and her world I can give her program as well as mine.

Because remember I tell you that we get $7 back for every $1 that we put into the system.

And I also give you a card that says we on net makes $700 billion.

When we cracked universal childcare, that wasn't talking about education that was universal childcare itself.

And so you should not believe that we're going to be able to implement both policies in either world.

But then even if you're not going to believe any of that recognize that I give you concrete reasons why universal programs are inherently better.

And this is for a few reasons.

First off, I read you the Cohen 19 response which was the third response plan opponents last support.

Which specifically tells you that universal programs are better because it interests people don't fall through the cracks.

And my opponent's world, certain people aren't going to receive these targeted programs.

Certain people aren't going to be held and that's going to be far worse than everything else.

My point it admits that we have to have at least basic standards.

The only way to make sure we have basic standards for everyone is to have a program that goes for everyone.

But secondly, is that my opponent is queen me drop the response from Brady in 2012, which says that it's way harder to cut programs that are universal.

Look, we know that there are always going to be people inside of Congress.

We're going to want to roll back programs that help the before.

But universal programs are really hard to cut because we view them as universal rights for everyone.

So if you want to have a program that is going to have an ability to be healthy in the future, you ought to, you ought to affirm.

And then the last KBI is going to be this notion of simply helping the least advantage.

All of my opponent's arguments centered around this idea that my world is bad because it leads to segregation that leads to all these problems.

But she admits that my world is better than the status quo because even if it isn't perfect it gives people a baseline.

And secondly, her world would suffer from all of these exact same problems.

She doesn't tell you why.

Even if people were able to go to whatever childcare centers they want there wouldn't be segregation.

I give you Colin's 2013 which is we help the least well off empirically.

Even if they don't get the most help the baseline is the fundamental need that they have supervision reduces the amount of death by 75% and it ensures that less people have to go into the adoption system.

That's if you want to ensure women can work.

If you want to ensure here there's baseline quality.

We want to ensure that all people's rights are inherently upheld.

You affirm.

- Soren Palencik is a Senior at Hawkins School and he's been debating Sophia Avery.

Okay, so congratulations to both of you.

What an extraordinary debate.

I was really struck by the the extensive research that both of you did.

Sophia, how much time do you spend in prepping for for a resolution like this in, just in research?

- (Sophia laughs) Oh man, this is gonna expose me for not having a social life but substantial amount of time, definitely.

Especially because this was the state's topic.

Like other topics, you know like you spend a good amount of time, but specifically because this is the one for our state tournament.

My whole team just spent like the whole last week, just nonstop prepping this topic.

- Soren - Yeah, I mean, I would definitely say that there there's no way I would be debating here or I would've had any successes to debate without the really great team that I had around me.

The amount of time that everyone's spent dedicated to not just helping themselves, but helping other people and giving arguments that will help each other is is it's one of the best parts of the date.

And without it there's, there's no way I'd be successful.

- Well, on behalf of the City Club of Cleveland and our partners at BakerHostetler, I'm pleased to announce that the winner of the 2021 High School Debate Championship is Soren Palencik, of Hawkins school.

Congratulations, Soren.

How are you feeling?

- Thanks, I feel amazing.

I definitely watch the City Club Debate like all my years as a High School Debater.

And I'm just, I'm just thrilled that I got the opportunity to actually win it.

So thanks.

- All right.

Well, congratulations.

We're excited to get that trophy out to you and another one to your school as well.

Congratulations to you.

Soren Palencik, winner of the 2021 High School Debate Championship, congratulations.

The 2021 High School Debate Championship for the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association has come to a close.

Our forum is now adjourned.

(Bell rings) - [Advertiser] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to cityclub.org (rumbling sound) - [Advertiser] Production and distribution of city club forums on idea stream are made possible by the generous support of PNC and the United black fond of greater Cleveland incorporated.