This case says that privacy is more than just “something we should have because it feels good”, it is instead a necessity to protect ourselves from corruption. It may be easy to be swept up in deontology, and non-practical, abstract ideas, but remember: this does affect things far beyond just our privacy.
The key to persuasion (and this is true in any Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution) is to make your side seem like the emotional—yet reasonable—choice, and to shift the rhetorical debate to make your opponent’s side seem unimportant. This affirmative case does just that.
The Six-Day War is undoubtedly the most prominent application used in Stoa Lincoln-Douglas debate this year. It shows up nearly every round. This OPP brief addresses this.
When it comes to war, this means that governments should avoid large risks whenever possible. That’s what this case is built on.
When a war has already, in essence, begun, action must be taken to minimize the devastation of the conflict. That’s what this case is built on.