This case, in essence, consists of you asking the judge why citizens should be compelled by their government to speak. After all, compelling speech is the same as controlling speech, and requiring the names of confidential sources to be released is the same as compelling speech. All done.
This case requires you to win the definition of a right, and to hold that over your opponent. Your resolutional analysis is key. If you can prove that reporters do not have a legal entitlement to keep their sources confidential, you can with any negative round this year.
This download is a Negative case for the NCFCA 2018-2019 resolution. The case focuses on the value of property.
This week’s first round provides an overview of the biggest stories this week, some dealing with the largest personas and reputations in America. Other topics include economic questions about security, high-profile retirements, and tariffs, the 2918 U.S. midterm elections, a section about human rights concerns, and a finals section about the interesting trends and questions of today.
This week’s topics of debate include social media’s truth problems, the U.S.’s involvement with Palestine, the next trillion-dollar company, Argentina’s financial woes, America’s immigration court backlog, attorney-client privilege, and protests that involve taking a knee.