NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2019. See message below.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "General Welfare"
The negative side of this resolution has the unique opportunity to use nearly all the influential economists of history to support its side. While fair trade is a buzz word for the modern age, truly free trade has been the primary philosophy of economists for a long time. This case sets up debaters to use this potential credibility to their advantage.
This case focuses on America. If pressed on having American-centric arguments, debaters can note that, given these debates take place in America and primarily with American students and judges, America is the best known and therefore the best arena for debate. In the economy, knowing all of the variables is extremely important, and the people in the debate room are probably most familiar with the variables of the American economy.
The value presented is of general welfare. As presented in the case, general welfare has long been of interest to all good governments. To better fulfill this governmental duty, this case presents the criterion of growth. While the evidence provided focuses on economic growth, debaters may choose to find indicators of social and moral growth to strengthen their position, particularly within rebuttals.
There are two contentions under the current formatting. The first provides two supporting points, one that is based on expert opinion, the other based on collected statistical evidence. If a debater is consistently finding themselves pressed for time, they may want to cut one of these points. The second contention is purposefully short, as most of the harms of fair trade should preferably be explored under refutation of the affirmative case.
Affirmative may want to combat this case by arguing against the links and broad claims as opposed to the provided evidence. Arguments about how the negative case is non-unique could prove to be particularly effective when it comes to the value and first contention. If the affirmative can disprove the second contention, they have taken away most of the negative impact. Negatives, beware! The second contention is the point that ought to be the most rigorously protected.
- 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. 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 and Library Archives are proprietary intellectual content, so please respect our copyrights. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member or a Library Access Owner 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, the only exception being from immediate family members within a single household.
Dominique Alisa Stringer competed in speech and debate for six years. She now studies Anthropology and Museum Studies at Luther College, where she has put her forensic skills to use in presentations, class discussions, and entrepreneurial pitch competitions. During her time as a competitor, Alisa’s favorite events were Mars Hill, Parliamentary, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate.