Shattering The Lens
A Thoughtful Look Into ThingsArchive for Debate
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government
If you are interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season, visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government
Finally! I am so thrilled that a real LD topic has finally be released. Granted, this is a recycled topic from several years ago, but at least it’s theoretical and philosophical as opposed to nonsensically pragmatic. For the first time in a long time, I can excitedly write a topic analysis. (As a note, I am not writing briefs for the Nationals topic, so look for the next wave of briefs starting in the fall)
Definitions
Oppressive government - This is one of those terms that we understand the meaning of but struggle to find a definition for. Essentially, an oppressive government is any government which actively works to harm the natural rights of its citizens. A lazy government that is just inept at performing its functions does not count as an oppressive government. As the affirmative, do not attempt to narrow the scope of oppressive governments that you need to argue for. You must affirm categorically, so do it.
More desirable - You need to define what it means for something to be desirable. To begin with, it is the people whose desire we are considering. For a given people, is an oppressive government more desirable than no government? That is the question you must answer, and you will use your value structure you define this framework.
No government - No government is just that, no government. The key is what you define as government. A government has to be a formal institution. Ergo, people making agreements with one another is not a government. It must be a third body which is outside of the populous, although it may be made up of members of that populous.
Frameworks
Affirmative
1. No government takes us back to the state of nature, and anything is better than the state of nature. According to Hobbes, the state of nature sucks, really bad. Anybody can do anything, and so, people live in a constant state of war and anguish. At least with an oppressive government, you know who your enemy is, and you can direct your efforts toward a particular entity as opposed to the nebulous void. In the state of nature, your rights mean absolutely nothing. At least when living under an oppressive government, you have the opportunity to fight and regain your rights.
2. Oppressive governments still protect you from foreign threats. Regardless of the fact that a government is oppressive, it is still your best option to defend against an invasion. If your land and property were attacked by a foreign army, your oppressive government would necessarily try to protect itself, and therefore protect you. This simple caveat alone makes oppressive government better than no government.
Negative
1. Oppressive government is less peaceful than no government. According to Locke’s assessment of the state of nature, Hobbes was way off. Locke contends that people will live peacefully and cooperate in a state of nature. While not having a formal government, they will still form informal social covenants, respect one another, and work together. An oppressive government actively works to destroy this peace that could be found in a state of nature, thus making no government more desirable.
2. No government makes it easier to establish a good government. It’s easier for a people to come together and establish a brand new government than it is for a people to overthrow and replace an oppressive one. Living without government gives the people that opportunity. An oppressive government will actively fight to maintain power, therefore making its citizens’ struggle for justice that much more challenging. If there is no government, it allows people the freedom to come together and build the society they want.
Hope that helps get you started, and good luck!
Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
Interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season? Visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
I don’t know that I could have thought of a more boring topic. This will quickly devolve into repetitive, monotonous debating with student reiterating the same facts over and over again. The resolution also provides you with the framework you need, so it doesn’t give students much room to come up with creative insightful arguments. It isn’t even worth complaining to the NFL anymore. They have demonstrated their incessant desire to put out terrible topics. With that in mind, let’s start the analysis 
Definitions
Continuation – This means to continue something i.e. not stop it. I don’t see any abuse potential or crafty definition approaches with this one. It’s straightforward
U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America – Debaters will need a very intimate understanding of these policies. They will need to know the specific laws and initiatives that are in place and the particular content of those law. An historical knowledge of past policies and lessons learned in Latin will also be integral to a student’s ability to effectively debate the point.
Frameworks
So here’s the thing about this resolution, you are only permitted to use the framework of a cost benefit analysis i.e. you have to state the harms and benefits of these policies, and you have to argue that one outweighs the other depending upon which side you’re on. If you are on the Con, you must argue either that the policies do more good than harm, or that the good and harm are equal.
Impacting explicitly will be crucial for this resolution. It will not be acceptable to just list out harms and benefits. The debater needs to argue that one outweighs the other.
As a result, instead of doing a framework analysis, I’m going to talk about some potential harms and benefits you can discuss.
Costs
1. Illegal Immigration – There is a demonstrable link between drug policies and illegal immigration. Some argue that these policies promote such immigration, while others argue that it mitigates it. Nobody, however, talks about whether illegal immigration is a harm or a benefit. So do your due diligence and look up some studies that correlate anti-drug policies and illegal immigration. Be sure to talk about the actual impact of illegal immigration and whether or not it is a harm or a benefit. There is an argument to be made that illegal immigration has a positive impact on the United States.
2. There Is No Benefit – Some experts contend that there really isn’t a point. The U.S. is dumping money into a bottomless pit. As U.S. drug agencies try to enforce their policies, cartels become more innovative. They are entrenched within society, giving them a distinct advantage over U.S. enforcement. Governments are unwilling to cooperate with us because of widespread corruption. The tide cannot be stemmed, so why bother have the current vigorous policies that we do?
3. Life Cost of Law Enforcement – Drug enforcement requires a tremendous commitment from law enforcement agents involved in the processes. Often times, one operation can require a decade of embedded commitment. These policies have led to an incredible loss of life from law enforcement without yielding any comparable benefit.
Benefits
1. Reduction of Drug Influx Into U.S. – Anti-drug policies have demonstrably led to a decrease in drugs crossing our borders. Trade and sale in the United States has decreased. This has had positive economic effects as well as a decrease in drug related violence in high drug traffic areas.
2. More Jobs in Law Enforcement – The mere existence of these drug policies requires a large number of people. These openings provide opportunities for many people, particularly in a time when jobs are scarce. This is a good counter to the point which comments on the commitment required by law enforcement. Some people are looking for such a commitment that lends itself to consistent and reliable income.
3. The Benefit of Existence – The policies exist, which in itself is the largest benefit. The resolution proposes a discontinue of the current policies, which would be far more catastrophic. So whatever costs we have incurred need to be absorbed because the harms of discontinuing the policies would be much worse.
I know I didn’t have much for this topic, but there really isn’t much to talk about. As I mentioned, the arguments will be repetitive, and because of the advent of popular briefs, the evidence will likely be repetitive as well.
Good luck!
Resolved: The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.
Interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season? Visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.
Why? Why do these topics continue to get worse and worse? I thought the new generations of kids were supposed to be getting dumber, not the adults! AGH! I mean, really though, who’s voting for these topics? How do they win? Who writes them? There is clearly some shady conspiracy going on to turn debate into a vacuum of nonsense. Ugh, I guess we just have to deal with it. So let’s do it.
Definitions
1. U.S. Government - We all know what the U.S. government is. People will inevitably try to make a distinction between the state and national government. In reality, it’s actually irrelevant. The resolution is asking you to argue the principle of the thing, not for a specific level of government.
2. Require - When the government requires its citizens to do something, that means it imposes some sort of punishment for not doing such thing. The content of this punishment is irrelevant to the resolution. You can assume that the government will not execute people for not having healthcare, and don’t let people try to get abusive with this. Again, the resolution is asking you to talk about the principle of requiring people to have health insurance rather than the actual content of what that would look like.
3. Citizens - We all also know what a citizen is. Being a citizen entails a legal status, not just that a person lives in the U.S. The reason the resolution uses this word is so that the Con doesn’t have to support illegal immigrants being required to have health insurance.
4. Health Insurance - Health insurance refers to the concept of a person paying a certain amount into a pool, and the pool pays costs for medical care and/or treatment if you should need it. Again, the form this takes does not matter. This resolution is not about the government providing universal healthcare. It’s about the government punishing people who do not have health insurance, like they do with car insurance.
Potential Positions
Con
1. Health Insurance is Good - It’s a fact that people who have health insurance end up better off. If there preventive examinations and consultations are paid for, people are more like to go in and get checked up. Requiring people to have health insurance will improve the overall health of the country. The long term result is that less and less people will actually have health associated costs, so healthcare spending will decrease.
2. A Health Insurance Requirement Stops People From Being Stupid - There is a large portion of the population that doesn’t get health insurance for reasons other than not being able to afford it. These people are jeopardizing their lives. If the situation were ever to arise that they would need medical care, they would not be able to get it because of an inability to pay. There’s a reason the government requires people to have auto insurance, and the reason reason holds true for health insurance as well.
Pro
1. The Requirement Won’t Have Any Significant Impact - People who don’t have health insurance will not be suddenly motivated to get it because of some government requirement. They will still abuse the emergency care system as they always have. A requirement doesn’t suddenly make health insurance affordable, nor does it motivate people to pay for something they don’t feel they need.
2. Individual Rights - Every person has a right not to have health insurance. By not getting health insurance, I am only endangering my life and nobody else’s. Therefore, I should have the ability to forego health insurance if I should choose. It’s not the government’s place to tell me how to manage my life.
I hope this helps you get started.
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
Interested in personal debate coaching this summer or during the season? Visit my new Debate Academy to inquire about personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more.
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
The trend of poorly worded resolutions continues. This one leaves an unending void for abuse and sketchy definitions. That being said, it’s what we have to work with, so let’s get to it.
Definitions
Justified – Justified means that there is good reason to do something. This good reason can either be something like a moral obligation which is more important than any other consideration, or it can simply mean that the positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes. This will be the hinge of you case. You must determine what it means for a government’s action to be justified. This is where your value structure will come from.
Intervening in the internal political processes of other countries - Here’s where the vacuum for abuse appears. With the way the resolution is currently worded, the affirmative needs to defend all actions which can interfere with the internal political processes of other countries. This includes military invasion, nuclear strike, assassinations, embargoes, election engineering, and essentially all other things. If you’re on the affirmative, I recommend dealing with this using an observation. Just say that you’re arguing for the principle of intervention, not necessarily any particular action. The actual form of the intervention will depend on the particular situation. Some situations may call for negotiations, while others may call for military invasion. What you’re essentially saying is, if the situation calls for a particular type of intervention, then the U.S. is justified in carrying it out.
Human rights abuses - Don’t try to get complicated with this part of the resolution. We all know what human rights abuses are, and there are plenty of historical examples to draw upon. People will try to make the affirmative defend absurd things like high taxes as part of human rights abuses. Don’t fall for it, and just call them out on their shenanigans.
Attempt - This word is important because people will try to abuse it to say that the affirmative doesn’t need to consider the outcome of the intervention because it’s just an attempt. It’s irrelevant whether or not it succeeds. While this may be technically true, you should pay attention to the affirmative’s case. They will likely be arguing a consequentialist position. This means that they must consider the likely outcome in the calculation of whether or not to invade.
Alright, with those definitions set, let’s talk about case positions.
Affirmative
1. Just War Theory – Just war theory dictates that cases of human rights abuses merit intervention by those who have the ability to do so. Because just war provides us justification for the most dramatic for of intervention, military invasion, it necessarily provides justification for all other forms of intervention. Therefore, the United States in justified in these interventions.
2. Self Interest - Human rights abuses occurring across the world are a threat to the United States. Regimes which carry out human rights crimes also often promote anti-U.S. sentiment and action. If these regimes and political processes are stopped, the U.S. will not only be helping those whose rights are being violated, but it will also be helping itself.
3. Moral Obligation - Peter Singer contends that if we are in a position to help somebody without sacrificing anything of comparable value to us, then we are morally obligated to do so. The scale of human rights violations occurring across the world puts the United States in this position. Because the U.S. is in a position to end these human rights abuses, it is incumbent upon it do so.
Negative
1. Governmental Legitimacy – While human rights abuses may be terrible, the U.S. is not justified in unilateral action. In order to remain legitimate, and preserve the legitimacy of international contract, the U.S. must go through the United Nations in order to conduct any intervention. Unilateral action violates international convenants which preserve governmental legitimacy.
2. Likelihood of Success - One of the key elements of Just War Theory is that an intervention must have a reasonable chance of success. History demonstrates that political interventions of any form are not likely to succeed. They often end up causing more damage than they prevent. Because the reasonable chance of success condition isn’t met, the U.S. has no justification for conducting these interventions.
3. Self – Determination - Every peoples has the right to self determination. When the U.S. intervenes, it inevitably violates that right by imposing ideas and rules on a people who have not elected to have those rules put upon them. The only way a country can truly attain stability is if the people decide their own fate. The U.S. needs to stay out of the business of other countries to preserve the rights of global citizens.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
If you’re interested in personal debate coaching, take a look at my Debate Coaching Services page.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
This topic is awful, so much so that I didn’t even feel like finding a witty cartoon to put in this post. The topic doesn’t even ask you to assess the merits of of the ruling, but the impact it has had on the election process. Enough time hasn’t passed for you to have adequate evidence to address the impact, nor is it possible to draw any sort of reasonable causal distinction. This is going to lead to terrible off topic debates. To everyone who voted for this topic, wtf were you thinking?
Ok, with that ranting introduction over, let’s actually talk about this nonsense.
Definitions
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - This is the only important definition in this resolution. Everything else is straightforward. What did the ruling do? There’s actually a lot to it, but the gist is that it allows for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money toward convincing people to vote for a particular candidate. My advice to you is to actually read the entire opinion available here.
Potential Case Positions
Pro
1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates’ positions and ideas.
2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as “buying votes” for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.
Con
1. Nothing Has Changed - There is no evidence to suggest that the election process is different in any noticeable way. Unions and corporations aren’t doing anything differently than they have done in the past, and voter allegiances have not dramatically shifted.
2. More Political Activity – Avenues for political education and awareness have become more effective since the removal of funding limits. The ruling has enable previously silent interests to become more active, which has allowed for a more vibrant political landscape, which is always a good thing.
I hope this helps give you some kind of start for this horrendous topic. Good luck finding evidence and analyzing it.
