If you strip away the appealing rhetoric, most national security cases possess ample opportunity for the negative.
This case is simple and effective. Instead of utilizing abstract moral theory, it emphasizes basic logical arguments that most judges can easily relate with.
The main argument of the case is that standard warfare is often unnecessary and will, in many cases, lead to more war.
This case expounds on the distinction between a pragmatic justification and a moral one.
Running national security as a value allows a debater to impact the resolution to real-world politics for justifying preemptive warfare.