Resolved: On balance, the current Authorization for Use of Military Force gives too much power to the president.

Need help taking your debate skills to the next level? Click here to visit my Debate Academy to get personal coaching. Let’s work together to make you the best.

Resolved: On balance, the current Authorization for Use of Military Force gives too much power to the president.

I don’t even know where to start with this resolution. It’s beyond stupid. The AUMF is a meaningless resolution that is nothing more than a symbol. The POTUS had all the powers outlined in the resolution before it was passed. He’s commander in chief. He can do whatever he wants with the military, with our without congressional approval or declaration of war. The AUMF doesn’t change that. This is a ridiculous topic to debate, and anyone who voted for it should be ashamed.

Definitions

Authorization for Use of Military Force – This is a U.S. statute and accompanying resolution that were passed in 2001 to authorize the president to use military force against any body he deems was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This includes nations that harbored or enabled the terror plot to happen.

Con

1. The AUMF is symbolic – The AUMF doesn’t extend any additional power to the president that he didn’t already have .The president is the U.S. commander in chief. As such, he is allowed to command military forces to act. In fact, the president has not used military force accompanied by a congressional declaration of war since WWII.

2. Social Contract Theory – Under a legitimate social contract, the governing body ought to hold a monopoly on the use of force. As such, the notion of “too much power” is spurious to begin with. The president should have the authority to deploy and utilize military forces unilaterally as needed.

Pro

1. Unilateral military control is dangerous – For anyone to have sole authority or control over how military force is utilized is a dangerous unchecked power. The president should require congressional approval or declaration in order to utilize military force. This will provide a check on the president’s power as well as providing transparency into what actions are being taken.

This topic is abysmal. I wish you the best of luck debating it.

Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

Need help taking your debate skills to the next level? Click here to visit my Debate Academy to get personal coaching. Let’s work together to make you the best.

Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

This is a good topic. It’s phrased how topics should actually be phrased, and it isn’t weighted heavily toward one side. There is actually a debate to be had here. So let’s talk about it!

Definitions

Universal basic income – A UBI is an unconditional amount of money guaranteed to people designed to cover their cost of living. The money is given without any additional requirements placed on it.

Ought – Remember that your job is to explain how we decide what the U.S. government ought to do, id god,so you need to make sure your framework accounts for that.

Affirmative

1. Veil of Ignorance – Rawls developed a model of evaluating social distributions known as the original position or veil of ignorance. He argues that all such decisions should be made by a body which has no biases. Basically, you must pretend like you could wake up tomorrow and be anyone in society, with any socioeconomic status.best fake id, From behind this veil, a universal basic income seems like a great idea. Who wouldn’t vote for that?

2. Utilitarianism – There’s a pretty obvious utility argument to be made. A UBI provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people because it takes care of those who are most in need.

3. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics – Aristotle described cultivating virtue as central to having a just society. Virtues exist as the mean between two extremes. One could easily contend that a UBI is the virtuous course of action, lying between the extremes of providing people nothing or a lot.

Negative

1. Economic Justice – All types of justice rely on the idea that people get what they deserve, or ought to of. Contending that people deserve an income just because they exist is difficult. What gives them the right to a universal basic income?

2. Property Rights – The UBI needs to come from somewhere; money doesn’t just materialize. It would likely require higher taxes on everyone else to provide for this. This is a direct violation of property rights. Unlike other things which taxes are spent on,id chief. most taxpayers will not see a benefit from the UBI. It’s also tough to claim that a UBI can function as a claim on others.

3. Moral Conflict – This is more of a complicated position. Basically, the argument here is the only way to get U.S. society to provide a UBI is to not provide a UBI. It will force the necessary moral conflict to get society into a place where a UBI becomes acceptable. Providing a UBI does not allow for the development of society’s morality to be able to accept the change. Moral conflict is good for moral progress, and income gaps increase moral conflict.