Affirmative debaters take note, negative debaters take heed. This case does address the reporter’s rights, but only vaguely. It provides more analysis for why reporters should not keep confidential sources, but less or why reporters ought not have the right to protect sources. This is a fine line, but one that ought to be observed. Negative debaters should be prepared to defend the case on this point in particular.
The negative side of this resolution has the unique opportunity to use nearly all the influential economists of history to support its side. This case sets up debaters to use this potential credibility to their advantage.
Apologetics is a limited-prep event where students study 100 questions provided by participating leagues. In competition, you are given 4 minutes to prepare for a 6-minute impromptu speech. This download covers the selection above in depth, providing Bible verses, quotes, citations, and analysis from an Apologetics champion.
This resolution questions whether reporters ought to have access to the essential tools that make their job possible. The case for freedom answers that question with a definite ‘yes.’
This case aims to ensure that the affirmative has a moral high ground in the debate. The rhetoric specifically questions the ethical validity of a negative position, while suggesting that affirmative better takes in to account the well-being of all people. The case focuses primarily on ideology as opposed to practicality.