NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: When it comes to war, this means that governments should avoid large risks whenever possible. That’s what this case is built on.
Released: Filed Under: Archives
About "Security of Our Soldiers (NEG)"
One of the questions you hear over and over in Lincoln/Douglas debate is this: “What is the purpose of government?” This question can be debated and dissected but realistically, the government’s purpose comes back to something incredibly simple: safety. If a government does not protect its citizens, as well as the soldiers it sends into battle, it fails its core purpose. After all, a government without its people is no government at all.
If safety is the core purpose of government, then it logically follows that safety should be the core of all governmental decision making. A government should avoid actions, military or otherwise, that risk losing human safety. When it comes to war, this means that governments should avoid large risks whenever possible.
That’s what this case is built on. Here a few things you should do while running it:
- Win your examples. Usually in LD the examples are not the focus of the case. However, this case is much stronger if you properly defend these two examples. In both of the examples, Neg may say “so we should just stand by and allow these corrupt regimes to take over?” That’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying that we have other options than preemptive that are more calculated and safe. Then, turn the rhetoric. Ask the Aff what they would have done in those examples. Are there any other options? Clearly preemptive warfare didn’t work.
- Be the reasonable one. It’s tempting to viciously attack every rising threat, but that sort of thinking can lead to terrible results in the real world. There’s a reason our invasions in Iraq and Vietnam are seen as mostly unsuccessful: They were reckless. America didn’t take into consideration the future repercussions of its actions. Paint the Aff side as reckless, hasty, and a loose cannon. Win the rhetoric and you win the round.
That’s pretty much it. This case is simple, easy to run, and should be effective if run properly. Above all, take this seriously. You’re talking about actions that could potentially risk thousands of lives. Make sure your rhetoric matches that mood.
- 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.