Shattering The Lens
A Thoughtful Look Into ThingsArchive for LD 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 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: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.
If you’d like to chat with me online, sign up for my free online seminar at my new Debate Academy. I’ll be publishing briefs and putting up online video courses as well.
Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.
I love when they recycle old topics. And by that I mean, wtf are they doing recycling old topics? Come up with something more relevant! Alas, like the many topics before this one, we’re stuck with what we’ve got, so let’s talk about it.
Parts of Speech and Definitions
Nouns -
Rehabilitation – This is the approach to justice which focuses on helping criminals see the error of their ways and once again making them productive members of society
Retribution – This is the approach to justice which focuses on punishing criminals for the wrongs they have committed
U.S. Criminal Justice System – We know what this is; it doesn’t really need a definition.
Verbs -
Ought to be valued – This is the crux of your case. You must develop a framework which addresses how we determine what a criminal justice system ought to value. Based upon that framework, you need to explain why the U.S. criminal justice system ought to value rehabilitation of retribution
Potential Case Positions
Affirmative
1. Societal Welfare - A society is better off with a greater number of productive members. Prisoners do not do society any good. Therefore, there should be a focus on rehabilitating criminals and releasing them back into society for the sake of making society better as a whole. The recidivism rate is so high anyway that simple punish only creates more problems.
2. Violence Breeds Violence – The punishment environments, particularly for violent criminals, in the United States are terrible places where once must become increasingly adept at criminal activity in order to simply survive. The culture within prison systems is not one which encourages proper and just behavior, but rather one which encourages prisoners to become more immersed in a criminal culture. A focus on punishment only exacerbates this and creates increasingly violent criminals as opposed to solving our problems.
3. Rehabilitation is More Economical - We spend a great deal taxpayer money on punishment systems in the United States, at almost unsustainable levels. The problem is that we really don’t have anything to show for it. All this expenditure on punishment hasn’t resulted in a significant decrease in crime. Rehabilitation costs much less, and if properly executed, it addresses the upstream causes of crime, resulting in a tangible decrease.
Negative
1. Governmental Legitimacy – As per the social contract, a government can only be legitimate if it properly enacts punishments for violations of the social contract. If focusing on rehabilitation, the government must inevitably become more lax on punishment. Therefore, we sacrifice true retributive justice in some vain hope of rehabilitating someone who has already proven himself to have disregarded the social contract.
2. Retributive Justice – True retributive justice actually demands that there be no focus on rehabilitation. Criminals violate the social, and therefore, they give up any corresponding rights to those obligations which they violated. They don’t deserve to be rehabilitated and integrated back into society because they had their chance to be a part of that society and chose to disregard its rules.
3. Retribution Accomplishes Rehabilitation’s Goals Better - Plato explains that the only true deterrence to a crime is the threat of punishment, and Hobbes agrees. The reason criminals continue to commit crimes is not because they think it’s OK but because they don’t fear the punishment associated with it. If the justice systems focuses on punishment, this deterrent mechanism of fear becomes much more active.
That should help you get started. Good luck!
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.
I hate this topic. This should not be a topic at all, let alone an LD topic. It is all sorts of poorly worded. Nevertheless, it’s what we’re stuck with, so let’s break it down.
Parts of Speech
Nouns: United States, universal health care, citizens
Verbs: ought, guarantee
United States - Obviously we know what the United States is. There is no reason to dwell on this definition. Because of the poor wording of the resolution, however, there is tremendous potential for abuse here. The intent of the resolution is clearly to focus on the national government. The question is whether or not the national government to provide health coverage for citizens. Do not try to be sketchy and argue that the state governments will provide it, or that the government will develop employer programs that will provide it. Focus on the philosophical question of whether or not it is a governmental obligation, regardless of the mechanism by which that obligation is carried out.
Universal Health Care – Again, we all know what universal health care is, but there is still a tremendous potential for abuse. Universal health care is, simply put, complete health coverage at no cost to the individual. Again, the particular mechanisms and costs should be irrelevant. The resolution asks the question of whether or not the government should provide it.
Citizens - Again, we all know what citizens are, as defined by the U.S. constitution and its laws.
Guarantee - In this context, guarantee means provide. Essentially, if you’re a U.S. citizen, you will receive universal health care.
Ought – This will be the crux of your case, or at least, it should be. You must develop a framework which you can use to evaluate what government should or should not do. Like resolutions before this, ought should not be defined using a definition at the top of your case. Rather, your value structure will help you determine how we know what a government ought to do.
Alrighty, with those definitions in mind, let’s talk about some potential case positions.
Affirmative
Distributive Justice – Rawls argues that true justice stems from a proper system of distributive justice. Government policy should be predicated about how rights and privileges should best be distributed for all. This evaluation ought to take place behind a veil of ignorance which ignores socioeconomic factors like income or geographical location because that is the only way to ensure a proper distribution. The argument here is that everyone, if placed behind a veil of ignorance, would agree that universal health care is a good thing. If you could wake up tomorrow and be any person in society, you would want to know that your health needs are taken care of. Therefore, proper distributive justice demands that the government provide universal health care for its citizens.
Rights and Obligations – Rights function in accordance with obligations. This is to say that if someone has a right, they must definitely have a corresponding obligation, or a claim that others have on them to act in a particular way. The U.S. government has the right to determine and enforce health policies across the country. It has the right to monetarily regulate the healthcare industry. Therefore, it must necessarily have the obligation to provide health care for its citizens. Otherwise, the right doesn’t really make sense.
Health Care is a Right – I really don’t like this position, but I suppose many people will try to run it. The essential argument here is that health care is a natural right that goes along with the right to life that the government is obligated to protect. If not that, then health care must at least be a positive right which the government ought to provide in order to contribute to societal welfare.
Negative
Health Care is Not a Right - This is the direct opposite of the affirmative position. A government is only obligated, as per the social contract, to protect the negative rights of its citizens i.e. the citizens have protections against infringement by the government. Health care is not such a protection, and therefore, the government has no obligation to provide it.
Universal Health Care Violates Capitalism – The United States economy is predicated upon capitalist notions, theoretically. It operates under the belief that free market forces will result in the best outcomes for consumers and producers. Based upon this reality, the free market ought to dictate how health care pans out in the country. If the government provides it, it will be overstepping its boundaries, and the quality of health care will actually decrease.
Universal Health Care is Unconstitutional - The U.S. constitution does not allow any provisions for the government to actually provide health care. The Commerce Clause does not properly justify such a drastic operation by the government.
I hope these positions help get you started. As always, feel free to comment, and I will get back to you!
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.
Here we go! Another season, another round of topic analyses. If you are new to the blog, I recommend you take some time to look through prior topics so you gain an understandings of how I do things and what I am trying to accomplish. As always, comments and discussion are very welcome 
Parts of Speech
Verbs – ought to extend, grants
Nouns – United States, non-citizens accused of terrorism, citizens, constitutional due process protections
Definitions
Non-citizens accused of terrorism - This is a slightly tricky definition with potential for abuse. Technically, the resolution does not specify that these people have to be non-citizens of the United States. They could theoretically be non-citizens of any nation. DO NOT use this grammatical mistake to your advantage/disadvantage. It will pollute the debate with all sorts of nonsense. Accusations of terrorism in this context come from the state. It is possible to argue that certain people may be accused of terrorism by the international community (like Omar Al-Bashir). Do not debate the definition of accused, and do not debate the definition of terrorism. The point here is that the U.S. considers these people to be terrorists.
Citizens - We all know what a U.S. citizen is and how a person gets to be a U.S. citizen. Just find a good definition from a credible source, and stick it in your case.
Constitutional Due Process Protections - This is also fairly straightforward, though people will try to abuse this term by defining either too narrowly or too widely what due process protections entail. If you start debating distinctions between procedural and substantive due process and getting into specifics of the U.S. court system, you will stray away from the true clash/conflict of the resolution. Due process in the Constitution is in the 5th and 14th amendments. Read them, distill the protections from them, and stick them in your case.
Ought to Extend - This is the crux of this resolution, and it will be definition through your framework. Why ought the United States do anything? That is the first question you must answer, and that use what you come up with to analyze whether or not the U.S. ought to do what the resolution asks.
Potential Case Positions
Affirmative
1. Human Rights - Due process is a fundamental human right, and therefore, should not be taken away from anyone. If the United States were to rob anyone of these rights, citizen or not, it would be committing a moral crime.
2. Moral Precedent – The purpose of denying these rights would be to more effectively deter terrorism. However, terrorism is more effectively deterred if these rights are protected even for our enemies. The U.S. has the power to set a global moral precedent which has the power to propagate human rights across the globe. The U.S. should lead by example. After all, if we deny human rights, then we are no better than the enemies we so despise.
3. Human Dignity - Nothing of moral significance separates a citizen from a non-citizen. All humans are morally entitled, by default, to fundamental rights. In order to win, the negative would have to prove that something morally significant separates citizens from non-citizens, which is not possible.
4. Innocent Before Proven Guilty - Because these individuals have only been accused of terrorism, there is no ground to claim that their rights are forfeit. It has not been proven that they have committed any crime, let alone a moral one which warrants sacrifice of their rights.
Negative
1. Utilitarianism - Human rights are only valuable because of the ends they achieve. In this case, greater good is achieved if we deny suspected terrorists due process rights so that we can perform interrogations and more effectively combat and deter terrorism.
2. Moral Precedent - A “no mercy” policy is far more effective in deterring terrorism. Plato explains that the severity of punishment is what most effectively deters crime. If people become aware of the severity of the consequences, they will be less likely to engage in terrorist operations.
3. Governmental Legitimacy - A government’s legitimacy stems only from its accountability to its own people. The U.S. government’s legitimacy, therefore, stems from its citizens. As a result, the U.S. does not hold any moral obligations toward non-citizens.
That should help you get started. Good luck!
