When it comes to the topic of culture, every judge is going to have a bias, whether they acknowledge that bias or not. Every judge has been raised in a specific culture and will have intricate views on the proper way for their culture to negotiate with others. In this debate, it will be incredibly important for debaters to approach the resolution from multiple angles so that no matter where the judge personally lands, they will be able to see the value of your side of the resolution.
Multiculturalism can seem like a nebulous topic when first explored, but there are some strong arguments for why it should be valued. Multiculturalism acknowledges the complexity of the world, and works to build from diversity, rather than hindering it. Our culture is one of many, and we can learn from one another, if we are willing to recognize the value of other cultures.
This case takes a narrow view of the resolution, but its topic is an aspect of the resolution that is essential to any debate of cultural ideologies. Our health shapes our personal lives and our communities, so we need to make sure we engage in thoughtful and informed discussion on health in immigrant communities.
No matter which side of the resolution a debater is on, we can all agree that life is valuable. The question we are left with revolves around how we can best protect people. This case attempts to answer that question by examining practical examples and taking the stance that the sanctity of life ought to be honored, even if doing so makes a nation uncomfortable with international power dynamics.
Preventive warfare can seem a cold option to judges when they are first introduced to it. It is the affirmative debater’s job to prove that preventive war is a practical and effective means of saving lives. Debaters need to remind judges that all war is cruel and when we naively believe that all conflict is avoidable, we do more harm than good.