NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: Running national security as a value allows a debater to impact the resolution to real-world politics for justifying preemptive warfare.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "National Security (AFF)"
This case is simple, logical and effective. Running national security as a value allows a debater to impact the resolution to real-world politics and provide an understandable framework for justifying preemptive warfare.
The basic premise of this case is that governments are morally obligated to protect a nation’s security, and, since preemptive strikes are often necessary to maintain or achieve security, preemptive warfare is morally justifiable. However, it is crucial to the success of this case that the judge understands the definition of preemptive warfare. For a strike to qualify as “preemptive,” the initiating country must be acting out of self-defense. For instance, if I were to preemptively attack someone, I would be attacking that person because I deemed her a threat and not simply because I wanted her wallet. As the definition of preemptive warfare specifically states, a country must be acting out of self-defense and not out of aggression.
Emphasizing this link to self-defense allows a debater to avoid the obvious negative argument that war endangers civilians and harms the economy. After all, a country must maintain the right to proactively safeguard its citizenry and its resources especially under conditions of imminent danger. This means that an action normally considered immoral is justified when the safety and stability of a country is at risk. Personal and national survival is a morally legitimate justification for a government to take preemptive action.
Some negative rebuttals might try to accuse this case of adhering to the Machiavellian “end justifies the means” mindset, where allegedly any action is justified by the end it produces. Machiavelli used this argument to rationalize tyranny, positing that it was justifiable since it often led to unity and victory in war. This argument can be disputed by making a vital distinction. The affirmative position is NOT that countries can do whatever they want so long as they make themselves more secure. Instead, this case posits that the security of a nation justifies any action that is completely vital to public safety. If a political tactic is not essential for security, it is not necessarily morally justifiable. In this case, preemptive warfare is crucial to national security and is therefore justified.
In order to win with this argument, it is important to avoid getting caught up in individual negative applications. Remember the most fundamental rule in debate states that time = importance. Spending excessive time on negative applications indicates to the judge that they are important. Instead, strive to guide the debate away from these applications by emphasizing your value and framework. For instance, if a negative team brings up three examples of abusive preemptive warfare, try to focus on proving why those particular countries were not acting out of self-defense. Brainstorming general ways to refute applications will greatly increase the amount of time you have to invest in your own case, bolstering its impact.
The impact of this case is one of its strongest persuasive attributes. A country that fails to protect its national security could be easily endangered and eventually eradicated. Because this danger must be avoided at all costs, preemptive warfare is morally justified. The ethical objections the negative side may present, many of which can be discounted, will pale in comparison to the impact of an entire society being shattered.
- 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.
Nathaniel has been competing in speech and debate for 5 years, and is thrilled to be writing for the Monument Publishing Team! He enthusiastically believes that debate prepares students to be beacons of truth in a dark and convoluted society. Nathaniel has competed in all 3 forms of debate, including parliamentary, which he placed 3rd in at NITOC 2017.