This is an aggressive contention-centric case that relies on solid analysis, concreate persuasion, and good numbers to win the debate round. While most affirmative cases right now are focused on a wonky definition of fair trade, or an idealistic value, this case takes the negative right where they want to go: the economy.
This Negative case shows competitor’s how to win on applications when their opponent brings up anecdotal examples and feel-good quotes, students want to be the one who shows the judge the truth.
This case is centered around its value. It’s going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible for an affirmative team to argue that confidentiality increases people’s trust in the press. Spend most of your time on the value, developing it. The case spends a lot of time currently in the contention.
Journalists help keep us accountable. They provide the people in any society with the information hey need to make the most informed decisions possible. More than that, they do the investigating that exposes injustice in the world around us.
Your value is a buffer. If negative tries to run some abstract ideology such as protection of rights or justice, your response is simple: Subjective. The strength in public safety is that it’s objective and clear. Judges know what they’re voting for when they vote affirmative.