NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: Presumption of Innocence is crucial to a justice system. That’s what this case focuses on.
Released: Filed Under: Archives
About "Governmental Legitimacy (NEG)"
This article was written by Season 18 authors Micah Chapman and Mark Csoros.
Article 11, Section 1 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”
This mindset, the Presumption of Innocence, is crucial to a justice system. That’s what this case focuses on. It’s fairly easy to run, and extremely theoretical. Make sure to do a few things while running this case:
- Outweigh the examples. Affirmatives are presumably going to have many examples, which isn’t a problem for this case. Make sure to outweigh those examples by stating that, morally, those attacks were unjustified. Affirmatives are going to run example after example of preemptive attacks being successful. However, just because something is successful does not mean it is morally justified.
- Use the “morally justified” definition to your benefit. Every affirmative example can be brought back to those 6 key criteria. When an example arises, test it against those criteria, and determine whether it was just or not.
- Don’t let the affirmative get away with justified examples. Affirmatives may say, “In the example I brought up, the country in question had done something illegal, making the preemptive strike justified.” If that’s the case, it’s not truly preemptive warfare. Remember, preemptive means before. An attack isn’t preemptive if it’s done to punish an action. It has to be initiated before the action occurred. By using this rhetoric, you can defeat most examples that come up.
- Use gripping rhetoric. The affirmative side (by definition) kills innocent people, no matter if they were actually planning an attack or not. Focus on that aspect of the resolution. Don’t overdramatize it, but make the judge feel bad about voting for the resolution.
Be the philosopher in the room, and don’t let the affirmative get away with cheap examples. Good luck!
- 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 18. 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.
- NEW FEATURE! 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.