NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: The main argument of the case is that standard warfare is often unnecessary and will, in many cases, lead to more war.
Released: Filed Under: Archives
About "Global Peace (AFF)"
Many affirmative cases this year will be predicated on country-specific ideals such as national security or political legitimacy; however, a global perspective offers a unique and powerful argument for the affirmation of the resolution. There are two unique reasons why debating with a value of global peace is persuasive. First, it allows you to delve into a broad variety of issues that with standard cases would sometimes be inappropriate. For instance, a case with a value of national security generally focuses on the specific countries being threatened instead of the entire world scene. The discussion primarily revolves around what would keep that one country secure as opposed to what would be the most internationally stable option. During WWII, the United States delayed involvement until after their national security was compromised at Pearl Harbor, whereas if they had attacked the Axis powers at the outset, the war would have likely been over faster.
The second advantage a global interpretation offers is an increased scope of impact. During the Six Day War, Israel preemptively struck its Arab enemies and avoided a large-scale conflict. However, often the countries threatened don’t have the ability to conduct a precise preemptive mission. Arguing a value of national security would limit you down to the countries that can look after themselves, whereas valuing global peace requires the needs and abilities of the developing world to be accounted for as well.
A popular argument against this case will be that the peace of the planet is not the responsibility of a national government. Against this there are two main responses. The first is that the national security of a country is directly predicated on a peaceful world. An international community that is in chaos makes it very difficult to be secure and almost impossible to be economically prosperous. Therefore, countries ought to look out for international peace simply to preserve their own wellbeing. In addition, international organizations like the UN lack a military and thus don’t have the ability to be effective peacekeepers. If strong countries don’t work together to protect the weaker ones, rogue states and reckless regimes will catalyze massive destruction and end thousands of lives.
As is true with most affirmative cases, setting up clear parameters for preemptive warfare is key. As the definition states, preemption is not just one country feeling threatened and responding with force. In order for something to classify as preemptive, there has to be imminent danger involved, which means there is a definite threat that could unfold at any time. If the threat is possible, but not definite, then responding with force is called a preventative strike, not a preemptive one. Additionally, preemptive warfare must be aimed at dissolving the threat. If a danger is imminent, the country being threatened can not just attack with the intent of scaring the other country’s government; instead, they must target the specific source of the threat in their strike.
The main argument of the case is that standard warfare is often unnecessary and will, in many cases, lead to more war. In 1967, Israel and her Arab enemies (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) would have been engaged in a long and bloody war if Israel had waited to retaliate. Their preemptive surprise attack eliminated a majority of Syria and Jordan’s planes, which removed the capacity for these aggressors to start a war. Preemptive warfare is an effective tool to avoid armed conflict and promote global peace.
- 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.