NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: This case portrays nationalism as a government looking after its own citizens, while a government that values globalism places priority on the whole world.
Released: Filed Under: Archives
About "Purpose of Government (AFF)"
At first glance, oxygen masks may not appear to have anything to do with the purpose of government or the resolution. However, as this case explains in more detail, they demonstrate an important principle: that it is essential to put priority on helping yourself before focusing on others. Using this analogy, this case aims to convince the judge that the debate should be centered on the purpose of government, and that this purpose of government is essentially to uphold nationalism.
This case portrays nationalism as a government focusing on looking after its own citizens, while a government that values globalism places priority on the whole world at the expense of the country’s own interests. Then, since both of these choices involve the government, the case argues that we are trying to decide what the role of government is in society, and that the best way to do this is to examine the purpose of government (hence the value of “Purpose of Government”). It then goes on to prove with two contentions how nationalism is the main purpose of government while globalism is not.
The applications of the Paris Climate Accord and the Ireland Economic Bailout show that nationalism is recognized as the primary purpose of government and that globalism causes a government to neglect its own citizens and fail this purpose. Come back to these applications at least once in your rebuttal speeches to remind the judge how they prove the ideas in your case.
If the Neg tries to replace your definitions with others that have different meanings, stand your ground. Your definitions, especially the definition of nationalism, are important, so make sure you can defend them. The Neg may also try to argue that some governments do not exist to protect their citizens, but rather to protect the government at the expense of the citizens (an extreme example of this may be North Korea). Argue that these governments are the exception to the rule and that, as you explained in the case, the recognized intended purpose of government is to protect the interests of its citizens. Debate your case and don’t get pulled into the Neg’s paradigm.
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members participating in Season 19. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All membership content is proprietary intellectual content, so please respect its copyright. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member, you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited.
Would you like to join?
Downloads like these don't grow on trees. They take hard work from experts. But we make it easy and affordable with a membership, and we'd love for you to join us! Fill out the fields below to be included in all that Season 19 has to offer:
Click here for more information.