How would you handle this highschool Homework Assignment?

[Sparkly]

My daughter is in high school, and has a very young history teacher who she likes very much. However, he's given them a project to defend a particular president as the "best president ever." The difficulty is that the kids did not get to choose which president they get to defend. He did that by drawing names from a hat, and was delighted when my (outspokenly liberal) daughter got Reagan!

So her assignment is essentially to come up with reasons why Reagan was the best president ever, and to "find bad stuff about Clinton" to debate the student who's defending Clinton.

Okay, so she could learn to BS like a political hack from this assignment, but it's worse. Part of the grade is given for the "validity" of the points and facts made.

So she doesn't know how to do this assignment without lying, and she has to be truthful as part of the grade. I am not sure how to help her, and wonder if this is worth complaining to the teacher about or whether to let her fight this battle herself. I guess I could arm her with "facts" that can only sound cynical, such as "Reagan made people feel confident in the economy by pushing huge tax cuts; Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% -- oh sure, it helped start to pay down that debt Reagan exploded, but did people feel as happy and confident? Maybe not!"

Any ideas?

[Village Idiot]

1. It shouldn't be THAT hard

to demonize Clinton while praising Bush...focus on Reagan's tax cuts, disarmament, support for Civil Rights...and then look at Clinton's Whitewater, tainted blood scandal in Canada, Murder Inc., and the infamous MonicaGate...

Stay away from Reagan's Iran-Contra troubles, and Cinton's job-creation record...

They are (or were, in RR's case) both men of whom a great deal can be said - GOOD AND BAD...

[bkcc]

2. wow. that sucks.

I am really not a Reagan fan, a sentiment I'm sure is shared by many of my fellow DUers.

The only nice thing I can think to say about Reagan is that his administration really rekindled a sense of national pride for many Americans. That's something I have heard from people of all political stripes.

Not sure how you build a whole argument out of that, however. Maybe you should just call the teacher and complain on behalf of your daughter.

[rpannier]

3. Focus on European foreign policy

Use his opposition to communism. His alliances with people like John Paul II to undermine the eastern blok. How by escallating the arms race, it basically bankrupt the soviet economy and sped up it's collapse. (I'm not sure I buy that theory completely) But, hey, when you're grasping for straws, a flimsy one is as good as any.

[russian33]

4. use me...

..have your daughter tell her teacher that she met a nice 'immigrant' from former USSR (me), who came to this great land of ours in 1991, and it's all thanks to the Gipper for saying 'Mr. Gorbacher, tear down this wall!'...and how great it is to live in the land of the free (well, till recently), and so on....the teacher will eat it up! I saw some guy on TV with a similar story this weekend, and the commentator was almost weeping...:puke:

[NMDemDist2]

5. oh my, that 's the same assignment (almost) that turned

Hillary from a "Goldwater girl" to a liberal.

[Warpy]

6. Reagan was the best president ever because

he was able to lie, cheat, rob, commit the treason of Iran Contra, skew the tax code to rob working people forever and not only escape impeachment for treason but have the very people he robbed continue to love him.

Clinton was the worst ever because although he righted a few wrongs and became internationally respected like no president since FDR, the people who love Reagan hated him enough to impeach him over a silly affair that was really nobody's business.

[info being]

52. That's great. I like your approach.

[HFishbine]

7. I like it

Seems like a valuable assignment to me; one that will test her debating skills, research skills and critical thinking. If she's going to have a hard time finding some personal motivation, remind her that there are people on "our" side who do this kind of thing all the time. In an effort to understand how the opposing side will try to make their case, people in campaigns frequently take up advocating for the "other side" as a means of formulating response strategies ahead of time.

[Lars39]

8. I would do 2 papers.

One would be the brown-nosing paper the teacher wanted, the other would be a comparison paper, backed up with good sources.

[dsc]

9. part of being a mature debater

is the ability to debate the other side of the issue honestly. I do think it was going overboard to make her do both pro Reagan and anti Clinton at the same time. You have had a lot of good ideas for Reagan so I will give you some suggestions for Clinton. Focus on the lack of permanency in his legacy. Bush was able to undo virtually every thing he did in 3 years (that gets some subtle digs in at Bush which should help). I think that is the worst that history will say about Clinton.

[kiahzero]

62. There are cases where that doesn't work

For instance, the case against same-sex marriage. It's not that there aren't any arguments; it's just that almost all of them are full of logical fallacies, and the ones that aren't are easily rebutted.

[Snellius]

10. Sounds like some stealthy sarcasm is in order

She could talk about what a good actor he was. Or his impeccably dyed hair piece. Or perfectly cosmeticized complexion.

[Paradise]

11. The ONLY saving grace for her is the following:

All she has to do with both Pro-Reagan and Anti-Clinton is to:
Quote or paraphrase what others say and quote or paraphrase what others feel!

'Proponents of Reagan say/feel'
'Detractors of Clinton say/feel'
'Specific names or groups say/feel'

and then end with:

My directive was to give you the good and bad of these Presidents, respectively, and I've done that, however I am not in agreement with either the proponents of Reagan nor the detractors of Clinton!

This method will do the job, and save her a lot of heartache. :hi:

[iconoclastic cat]

12. As someone who knows educational ethics very well, that bonehead

should be ashamed of himself. That is a very poorly designed assignment. I think you would be justified in raising hell.

[jdsmith]

44. How so?

What is unethical about it?

[iconoclastic cat]

60. He is openly promoting a single subjective opinion as fact,

which is neither logical nor honest.
This is why I believe that private schools that inculcate a particular worldview are at best abdicating their responsibility to foster critical thinking and problem solving skills in their students (future participants in a functioning republic), at worst totally undermining our society by conditioning children to accept dominion.

[iconoclastic cat]

61. Sorry for my vehemence, but I cannot abide political proselytizing

in the classroom. No matter how strongly you feel about any president--Bush included--it is the teacher's duty to give students the tools to analyze the facts and create a well-supported opinion--whether or not you agree with that student. The only thing that matters is that students can think critically and logically. Bloom's taxonomy is the only idol to be worshiped.

[jdsmith]

65. I don't see where "fact" shows up in the teacher's assignment

Do you think that the "debate" will be the last word on the subject? Or will the teacher lead a followup discussion?

[iconoclastic cat]

69. I'm just going from the description above:

However, he's given them a project to defend a particular president as the "best president ever."

According to my dictionary, a fact is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality." The reality she is being asked to defend--find proof for--is that Reagan=Best President Ever.

[jdsmith]

72. The assignment seems to ask for argumentation

which is typical of humanities assignments ("Which Rita Dove poem best illustrates her use of family myth?" "Which work better sums up pre-Great War anxieties: _The Rite of Spring_ or _Satires of Circumstance_?")

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I agree with a couple of people who said...

that this is a typical assignment for debaters-- you are given a topic and told which side to take. If you can't reasonably come up with arguments for the other side, why should we trust you to come up with arguments for your side? Rarely, if ever, is any topic purely black and white.

So, have her make lemonade from this lemon and go over all of the standard Republican talking points about Reagan and Clinton and pick the most reasonable ones to make a case of. Reagan's optimism and ability to fire up the populace and gain it's trust is a good place to start, comparing him to Churchill. Clinton's lack of legacy and inability to make any more than superfluous changes is the another.

The important thing is to remember that you don't have to believe your debating points, you just have to make them.

[Yupster]

14. A reasonable intellectual exercise

Just be glad you didn't get Buchanon or Hayes.

Plenty of ammo for Reagan. Shouldn't be hard.
Just tell her it's like debate where you don't know which side of the argument you'll be defending until you get there.

[HawkerHurricane]

15. The point of a debate

is never who is right and wrong, but who is the best debater. Accuracy gets thrown out in favor of victory... If you've ever been to a creation/evolution debate, where the creationist is a proffessional debater and the evolution supporter is some poor biology teacher who's in over his head... the creationist will win the debate while not proving a single point, while the biology teacher will have every fact on his side, but lose the debate.

Same thing; I hated 'debates' when I couldn't pick my side, I always felt slimy for defending the indefensible and attacking on pointless topics.

[Sparkly]

17. The thing is, it's a "history" assignment

It's supposedly about factual research, but there is the element of debate thrown in. I suppose it's a matter of strategic choice of facts to present and facts to ignore...?

I'm guessing the teacher wants the students to think outside their boxes, so to speak.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. bad assignment

I would refuse to do the teachers bidding. He is playing games. Of course she would risk taking a Zero. How convicted is she about telling the truth?

Personally I think "excercise in debate skills" is a weak excuse to defend this assignment.

[HFishbine]

26. Except

Another student apparently will be debating on behalf of Clinton and against Reagan. There is an opportunity for balance.

[JayS]

18. This link may help her with some of the "context" stuff.

http://it.stlawu.edu/~quack/seminar/home.htm

[Sparkly]

20. Interesting

"...to reassure Americans that their country had returned to its position as leader of the free world. Although the facts disputed Reagan's claim, the American people embraced the message they most wanted to hear."

This could all be useful in the "people thought/felt" strategy Paradise posted about.

That's an interesting site, although it's almost depressing to revisit that election!

[ACK]

19. Subtle sarcasm .... a bit of thinly masked cynical sarcasm

Goes a loooong way.

:-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Get Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" as it

has an entire chapter on how Clinton disappointed liberals and progressives.

Not sure what she can say in defense of Ray-gun, though.

[Sparkly]

23. Oooh, interesting twist

I'm looking at it... "He (Clinton) has been able to kick ten million people off welfare..." She could say, "Sure, Reagan may have talked about it a lot, but at least he never really did it."

"He (Clinton) has released funds for local communities to hire over a hundred thousand new police officers and supports laws that put people behind bars for life after committing three crimes -- even if those crimes were shoplifting or not paying for a pizza." Whereas, she could say, "Reagan never did that. When he freed the mentally ill people, he didn't put more police out there to arrest them. Some of those people might be insane, did Clinton ever think of that?"

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. You are ON to something there! :^D

[veganwitch]

40. roger and me is a great example of fabulous trickle down reagenomics.

whoops thats supposed to be roger and me.

[Hamlette]

22. turn it into a subtle debate about Bush

show how Reagan never would have gotten us into a war in Iraq. Reagan, for all his tough talk was really a compromiser and negotiator. He wanted to bankrupt the Soviet Union, we could have done the same thing in the middle east by developing alternative fuel sources.

[LTR]

24. Offer to trade with the Clinton asignee?

:shrug:

[WoodrowFan]

27. look for anything LIBERAL Reagan did.

Didn't Reagan propose some arms controls and support Earned Income Tax credits! Have her use stuff like that!

[MallRat]

28. Would the teacher appreciate satire?

"Reagan's groundbreaking tax-cuts and new philosophy of trickle-down economics ensured that the '80s would be a decade of unparalleled greed... um, ooops... I mean, PROSPERITY for dozens... um... hundreds... uh... MILLIONS of Americans."

If you think the teacher would go for it, your daughter could score big points.

-MR

[Scooter24]

29. My history...

My history professors always tried not to hold political dialogue as factual. Political "validity" is all in the eye of the beholder. Instructors shouldn't pressure students to defend a political icon that is in opposition of their own political views; Especially when the material to support their argument is highly subjective. I would talk to the teacher and see what you could work out and get him to explain how he would grade the validity of the information. If he refuses to budge, then try to limit the amount of outside information in the paper's bibliography while using primarily pro-Reagan sources. This would give that paper a secure bias. If it was me, and just to prove a point, I would include a preface paragraph, a sentence or two about the subjectivity of the information provided and a disclaimer that the information held doesn't reflect the author's own political views. Even when the information is balanced in a debate, defining what you say as "fact" could easily be dismissed by your fellow debater. So then the question "Who's argument is correct?" arises. Would the teacher's own political influence have bearing in the grade? So many questions will arise and I would ask questions before writing this paper just to be sure.

[jokerman93]

30. Garbage Assignment

The teacher is an undisciplined jack*ss for even giving this assignment. Has he given even the slightest thought to what it is he's trying to accomplish by giving this assignment? When I went to school (and when I taught), writing an academic paper or even a one page essay, required a certain amount of rhetorical discipline, intellectual rigor and fact checking.

Is the purpose of this lesson to demonstrate to the students how facts may be ignored and manipulated to serve the prejudices of the author?

I'd take this crap to the school board and find out precisely what the object of this lesson is. This young teacher may be "cool" and likable, but he's a fool and doing his students a disservice if this is his idea of a history assignment.

[Baltimoreboy]

32. Perhaps his point is that there are two sides to each president

nt

[booksenkatz]

31. The only way to get thru it would be

to use thinly-veiled sarcasm, as others have suggested. Tell your daughter to pretend she's Karen Hughes and to fight for her position even in the face of blinding facts to the contrary; it's what Karen would do. It's what Karen DOES. Tell her to pretend that this is acting class, that she's just going to be playing a role. Because I just don't see how you can defend certain things without stooping to downright humor. What if, for example, your daughter had been instructed to defend Hitler in a school assignment? Or Ted Bundy? I'm thinking that I might be able to defend Satan in an assignment like this, as long as I get to use large spoonfuls of humor, but if it has to be serious, I'd have to take a zero. I cannot in any way seriously defend people who commit treason against my country and whose policies hurt people who were not white, wealthy, heterosexual, and connected.

On the other hand, didn't I hear that Hitler was kind to animals, and that Ted Bundy was a polite and charming fella? Hmmmm. Maybe there's a way to do this after all. Lots of luck!!

[jokerman93]

33. I'd agree with you

I'd agree with you if this were an English writing assignment to teach a student how to defend a point of view. But this is a History assignment. The assignment here seems more like how to make the facts fit someone's pet version of history. Doesn't belong in a History class -- unless you're living in China's Cultural Revolution or Hitler's Germany.

[booksenkatz]

34. I know what you mean

I'm not too crazy about this venue myself. Drama or English or Debate classes seem better suited for this. I'd be interested in knowing how the teacher intends to 'Big Picture' this assignment. Is one to conclude that history is like art... merely in the eye of the beholder, with no tangible truth? Is he trying to demonstrate that history depends on who's telling the story, that it is devoid of facts on its own? I wish I could understand exactly what point he's trying to make with this activity. As a student, what am I learning when I have to compile and defend lies in order to complete an assignment? I could do it easily in Acting class, but it's harder to do in History class.

[jdsmith]

45. Isn't understanding historiography essential for understanding history?

[slackmaster]

35. Did the teacher specify president of WHAT?

Would it be possible to avoid conflict by choosing an effective leader of some obscure third-world nation, or a corporate president?

It would teach the teacher to be more specific.

:evilgrin:

[theboss]

36. Mke it "Reagan's Accomplishments"

As opposed to "Why Reagan Was Great."

I don't like the assignment because it gives the student a conclusion without any research. If the research proves Reagan was great, that's one thing. But this is the opposite of how history is supposed to work.

But you can easily do Reagan's accomplishments and you can really make him look good if you are willing to piss all over Jimmy Carter (which I am more or less willing to do).

Basically, all you would have to do is make the argument the 1980 election marked a period where for the first time since the Great Depression, the question of American ascendency was at stake. The 70s were a brutal decade on the American psyche. In 4 years, Reagan was able to take the question off the table.

You can be honest and ask whether the question should be taken off the table, but that would allow you to conclude that reagardless of his accomplishments, Reagan was probably the best showman/salesman/etc to ever occupy the office, because by 1984, nearly 60 percent of the country believed the hype.

[seabeyond]

37. as hard as this is for your daughter, and i do feel her pain

what a clever clever teacher this is. i suggest she throws away battle and get into the play of it. how does she be truthful, find out why so many people voted reagan, there was a reason, listen to his speeches and hear where he was coming from...........bah ha ha, what a clever teacher, still a gigglin on this one. hm, i like. i like youth to have to work and exercise their brain

[Dinger]

38. I'd Report Her Teacher, and I'm A Teacher!

Yes, "facts" could be used, but it seems that the opinion of the writer is needed too. You can't give a "valid" opinion if that part's already been taken care of for you by the teacher. If it was me, I'd take the assignment as is , but write my conscience!

[veganwitch]

39. bring on the satire!!!

that would be my suggestion.

[Sparkly]

42. Okay, how about these?

Since satire or sarcasm seem to be the main recommendation here, how about:

- Reagan made Americans feel good. In the era when Billy Crystal made famous the phrase, "It's better to look good than to feel good," Reagan taught us "It's better to feel good than to do good." (Too obvious?)

- Imagine all the immoral homosexual acts Reagan prevented by failing to respond to the growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. If those people had lived, they might continued to have sex.

- By freeing the mentally ill from hospitals, Reagan championed personal liberty and fostered innovative new living arrangements on streets and in train stations.

- The tax cuts of the Reagan years taught Americans how to borrow money, never putting off until tomorrow what we can buy today. (Of course, we'll have to put off until tomorrow paying for what we buy today, as this class will learn when their parents retire.)

- The "Fruit Loop Defense:" Reagan taught us how to avoid impeachment after trading arms in specific violation of Congressional fiat -- say, "I was out of the loop."

Others?

[sandnsea]

41. Take a page from John Kerry

Go for the optimistic, believe in ourselves, sunshine in America crap. She ought to be able to find pages of quotes along those lines. "Tear down this wall". Kerry said in his speech to the Bedford High School graduates that the absence of the Berlin Wall might well be a better attribute than all the buildings with his name on it. (Get the speech, he words it alot better). One thing Reagan did do is talk. He did meet with Gorbacev and was respectful and communicative. That's the only thing I think he did to "end the Cold War". She could even frame it in a way that subtley compares it to Clinton's foreign policy in a postive way. I would absolutely hate to see her lie about things like the tax cuts and Reaganonomics because they were awful and set this country on a way wrong path. Maybe she could compare Reagan's clear goal of ending Communism and being respectful but firm, with Clinton being a little more wishy-washy in foreign policy. You can find comments in that regard from both Israel & Arab countries. Good luck to her, gads I'd hate that assignment!

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. Point of the Assignment?

I think the Point of the assignement is;
Your daughter is already aware of the negatives from the Reagan admin. But she needs to show she understands the positives as well.
No admin has been entirely one sided. Especially considering multiple points of view. The PHd engineer working for xxx Missile Systems probably has a diferent perspective of what is good.

OLTG

[jdsmith]

46. Did I miss someone's suggesting that she ask him what his purpose is?

Or is that the kind of thing parents and disgruntled kids are supposed to get school boards to do?

[Sparkly]

49. Apparently, it's to research facts on presidents

They are to find facts about their assigned president, and about their opponent's president, and make a presentation. It's formatted like a debate tournament, and the class votes on who was the "best president" based on the information provided.

I could see having them research facts.
I could see having them make an argument for who they believe was the "best president."
But I think it's difficult and awkward to have them make an argument the facts may not support.

But you have a point -- my daughter and I have been looking at this only in the sense of trying to figure out how to do it. I haven't asked the teacher what his own purpose is.

[jdsmith]

54. Asking the teacher is not out of bounds

I'm not saying that he has an especially good idea here--in fact, it strikes me as too clever an assignment by half. But by asking him what he has in mind, you require that he clarify his own thinking and pedagogy (you do him a favor as a young teacher whom your daughter likes) and, contrary to what some respondents have suggested, keep adminstrators and school board members out of the classroom for as long as possible.

If he is indeed pretty cool, one or two ironic comments would be your daughter's way of drawing quotation marks around the entire awful experience, of letting the teacher know that she's doing the assignment but from a distance. But, based on the description of the assignment, she ought NOT to be "sarcastic" unless she's willing to take a lousy grade. Is it worth it? Or is high school just one of those silly obstacles that is standing between her and what she really wants to do with her life?

[rocktivity]

71. Yes, I think you should talk with the teacher

Tell him/her you're not clear on the purpose of the assignment. Ask the teacher if s/he has established the definition of "best ever" is, or if your daughter is supposed to come up with one of her own (in which case she has a one-way ticket to Satire City). Most important, say you don't see what purpose it serves to force your daughter support an opinion she doesn't share, and that you don't understand how the project promotes either clear/critical thinking or self-esteem.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Baltimoreboy]

70. Fairly typical debate tactic

Making kids take positions, not choose the ones they will take. In high school, we had to be prepared to debate both sides of every issue.

Sometimes THAT was a challenge, but you learn a lot.

[stavka]

47. Focus on his presidency of the screen actors guild

He did much more for that organization than William J Clinton

[Endangered Specie]

48. Thats easy: Ronald Regan wuz the best prezident because...

He wasn't W. Bush, and that by comparison makes him great. Clinton was bad because he did naughty naughty things with a concenting adult, and we dont want THAT in our white house.

[Q]

50. I'd advise her to tell the truth...

...and take the bad grade. Nothing is more important than honesty.

[moondust]

55. Yup. Tell the truth, take the F.

Tell the teacher and/or her supervisor that the system that punishes the truth is a system DOOMED!

[qb]

51. She should put on her debating cap and defend RR with all her heart

using arguments from the rabid right. After all, this is supposedly a debating exercise.

She can do this using only well-referenced facts by stating them in language that appeals to the farthest right-wing extreme wackos. In this way, she will:
1. Complete the assignment as instructed.
2. Expose the side of RR's "accomplishments" that is vulgar and distasteful to 90% of the population.
3. Retain her liberal soul, since it will be obvious she's only taken on the role of a master debater.

[jdsmith]

66. And with a parent's guidance she'll learn how the Right thinks

[wadestock]

53. Here's some ideas, hope it helps

Ronald Reagan was a good president because....

1. He came up with the idea that people should keep the money that they make and that once people get rich, they will naturally want to help out other people that are less fortunate.

2. He built up our forces with so much money that it literally scared the Soviet Union into turning to democracy. Without Ronald Reagan, we might all be communists today.

3. After he left office, there was a huge national debt, but we shouldn't blame it on him because the democrats were in control of the congress.

Clinton was not a good president because....

1. He tried so hard to give us national health care, but nobody in America really wanted it. We really shouldn't have government tell us what to do.

2. He found a way to pay down 500 billion dollars of national debt by increasing the tax rate to the rich, but most people don't like him because he didn't give them a tax break.

3. He found a way to cut down the size of the federal government, and keep us out of a major war. Neither of these is good for our overall economy however.

[JHB]

56. Does some poor (or lucky?) kid have to sing the praises of Polk?

While I applaud the attempt to get people to look at something from multiple perspectives (and not just the one they "agree with"), having to argue a particular president is "the best ever" is a bit overboard.

I also wonder if other students have to argue for more historical presidents -- ones who today are much less politically charged and for whom the bulk of research material will be works by historians, not political partisans.

[shimmergal]

57. Concentrate on his conduct of foreign relations & mini-wars.

Aside from the Iran-Contra affair, what he did once in office was not nearly as scary as we'd feared. I used to contrast him with Teddy Roosevelt, saying that his approach to foreign threats was "yell loudly and carry a powder-puff". But you know what? It worked, most of the time. Maybe it was his acting background; maybe he thought talking like a cowboy would scare others away from violence, but by and large it did. A big contrast to the current pResident, who thinks the cowboy act means having fun actually shooting the weapons, never mind the consequences! And give him credit for eventually signing on to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, his "evil empire."

I can't think of _anything_ good he did in domestic actions, except for performing well as a head of state on momentous occasions like the Challenger disaster. His acting training probably helped him there too, but I think it was heartfelt and it was effective.

However, arguing against Clinton based on the above is a non-starter.
Can't she use these points to make a case against the Chimp instead?

[shimmergal]

58. Concentrate on foreign relations and mini-wars.

Aside from the Iran-Contra affair, what he did once in office was not nearly as scary as we'd feared. I used to contrast him with Teddy Roosevelt, saying that his approach to foreign threats was "yell loudly and carry a powder-puff". But you know what? It worked, most of the time. Maybe it was his acting background; maybe he thought talking like a cowboy would scare others away from violence, but by and large it did. A big contrast to the current pResident, who thinks the cowboy act means having fun actually shooting the weapons, never mind the consequences! And give him credit for eventually signing on to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, his "evil empire."

I can't think of _anything_ good he did in domestic actions, except for performing well as a head of state on momentous occasions like the Challenger disaster. His acting training probably helped him there too, but I think it was heartfelt and it was effective.

However, arguing against Clinton based on the above is a non-starter.
Can't she use these points to make a case against the Chimp instead?

[shimmergal]

59. Sorry for the dup. posting.

The first one was flagged as not going through.

[Cleita]

63. Excuse me if I don't get the point of this exercise. Although it

would seem an appropriate assignment for a political science class, it hardly seems like a good assignment for a history class. Maybe you should talk to the teacher and find out what he had in mind.

[GreenPartyVoter]

64. Lots of Reagan articles here:

http://www.commondreams.org/

[October]

67. Is there balance?

For instance -- make sure there's another student who has to "find bad stuff about Reagan," since your daughter has to "find bad stuff about Clinton." It's the only way to level the debating field.

And I wouldn't hesitate checking that one with the teacher.

[VolcanoJen]

68. As a former champion Lincoln-Douglas debater, I hope your daughter...

... embraces this assignment.

Having to argue both sides of one issue is an important exercise toward achieving rational thought, and learning how to form one's own opinions.

When in high school, and debating my ass off, I found it so challenging, and interesting, to learn how to argue an issue from many different perspectives. I think it's what helps me kick Republican ass, today, actually. I can actually see where they're coming from, and that's crucial when you're trying to beat them into submission. :D