Intervention debate cases (January-February 2013)
AFFIRMATIVE
United States President Jimmy Carter once said, “Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.”
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. I affirm the resolution.
Definitions are needed in order to better understand this resolution. The United States is defined as a country composed of the land,
people, and organizations that operate in the land area called the United States of America. To be justified means to be inside the realm of possibility. Intervening is to become present in for any purpose. Internal political processes are any actions of a government related to governing inside of their own country. Human rights abuses are actions done to lessen or eliminate the freedoms that all humans innately have.
Value: morality, or the way people must act because of the intrinsic nature of actions according to an ultimate morality. Morality best
upholds the resolution because it places human rights above internal political processes.
Value Criterion: human rights, or the way people ought to be treated because of their innate rights as defined in the United Nation’s
Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights uphold morality because preserving the sanctity of human rights regardless of the consequences is right because of its intrinsic nature.
Contention 1: The sanctity of human life is greater than the sanctity of government. Human rights abuses come from the intent to harm human life, for human life without rights is no life at all. Because humans compose, run, and allow for the existence of governments, they must be valued before the government that would not exist without them. Therefore, anything that preserves human life is justified. The United States can intervene in the internal political processes of other countries in order to stop human rights abuses because it protects humanity. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because human rights requires human life rather than human-created governments. Correspondingly, this upholds my value of morality because preserving man is
more moral than preserving manmade things.
Contention 2: Sanctification of human rights abuses comes when action like intervening in the political processes of other nations are not taken. If something bad happens to a country’s innocent citizens, then the United States allowed it to happen and must be okay with it if they do not take action. As a guiding force throughout the world, the United States must promote its worldview of being against human rights abuses by involving itself in other countries’ internal political processes. Other countries rely on our strength
and guidance. Doing nothing means that we approve, and, if one of the world’s most powerful countries approves of human rights abuses, then they will be approved by the rest of the world. Acting on the matter upholds my value criterion of human rights because it ensures that human rights abuses will stop, and this, in turn, holds up my value of morality because setting an example that
promotes morality is a moral thing to do.
Contention 3: If the United States knows that human rights abuses are wrong, then it cannot wait for other nations or governments to make the right decision of intervening in internal political processes. As a powerful, independent nation, the United States must take decisive action to stop human rights abuses by itself. It is very hard to miss human rights abuses or be mistaken because they are so blatantly against the rights of all humans as defined in the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. The only way to stop these abuses is to intervene in the political processes of other nations when necessary. The United States is justified in intervention because we have committed ourselves to upholding what is right. Taking actions without relying on other countries upholds my value criterion of human rights because doing so would end human rights abuses, and it also upholds my value because morality does not come from the sanctification of other governments.
Contention 4: Allowing human rights abuses to continue would jeopardize the safety of the citizens in the United States as well as others around the world. If one country crosses the line into abuse, then everything must be done to stop them because individuals in other countries will no longer fear the repercussions of such deplorable acts if the United States does nothing. Intervening in their internal political processes is justified in this manner because it will end human rights abuses all around the world. The United States must stop its escalation before it spreads to other countries, around the world, and even to the United States itself. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because taking action to end human rights abuses protects all of humanity by stopping the escalation of human rights abuses. This also upholds my value because human rights abuses ought not to be spread because of the amoral consequences of doing so.
Contention 5: Intervening in the internal political processes of a foreign nation is the only way to get to the cause of the human rights abuses. Too many times, people will merely send in humanitarian assistance with the goal of ending human rights abuses, but this does not work. Governments are the cause of human rights abuses either because they allow them to happen or because they encourage them themselves. Therefore, a government whose people are subjected to human rights abuses does not have the right to continue. People in a society enter into a social contract with their society, and, if that society fails to offer them the protection that they deserve based on that social contract, the government must be modified. The power of a government comes from the people. However, if that government allows human rights abuses to occur within its governed population or in another population, the government has stepped over the line of being a just government and becomes against the will of the people. The only way to fix a government that sanctifies human rights abuses is to change the government itself, and that can only come from intervening in its
internal political processes. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because it goes directly to the cause of human rights abuses and tries to eliminate them. Similarly, intervention because of this contention upholds my value because eliminating the cause of amoral actions are the best way to promote moral actions.
NEGATIVE
Winston Churchill once said, “Want of foresight [and] confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong- these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. I negate the resolution.
Definitions are needed in order to better understand this resolution. The United States is defined as the land, people, and organizations that operate in the land area called the United States of America. To be justified is to be reasonable based on logic and pragmatism. This resolution implies that the United States is the only force carrying out the resolution. Intervening is to interpose oneself in another’s affairs. Internal political processes are any actions of a government inside its own country. Human rights
abuses are actions done to lessen or eliminate the freedoms that all humans innately have.
Value: security, or the freedom from danger and presence of safety. This value best upholds the resolution because, without security, there would be no such thing as a country who has the potential to intervene in the political processes of other nations. The first goal of a country is to protect itself and its people.
Value Criterion: self-preservation, or the maintenance of oneself free of harm or destruction. Self-preservation upholds the value of
security because safety cannot be achieved without focusing on oneself before others.
Contention 1: Going into a foreign government does not ensure that human rights abuses will stop because governments and human rights abuses are not directly related. Therefore, intervention should not occur. Governments control and guide their populations, but, when it comes down to it, humans choose their own course of action. If people in a country decide to subject other people in that country to human rights abuses, then the government is limited in its course of action. Therefore, the United States may not be able to stop human rights abuses by intervening in the political processes of other nations. This idea upholds my value criterion of self-preservation because no one should do something as drastic as intervening in the political processes of other nations without knowing whether or not that action will be effective because of the risk to oneself. Similarly, this contention upholds my value of security because risks must be weighed with projected outcomes.
Contention 2: Interposing itself in the affairs of other nations could jeopardize the relations that the United States has with other countries. This can prevent the United States from dealing with human rights abuses in the future. If the United States establishes a pattern of intervention, then no country will want to seek US assistance. It is therefore necessary to prioritize intervention. This upholds my value criterion of self-preservation because the best way to protect oneself is to ensure that one can do so for a long time to come. Correspondingly, this contention upholds my value of security as all endeavors must be weighed against their consequences, both long-term and short-term.
Contention 3: If the country in which the United States intervenes does not want the United States there, then human rights abuses may escalate. Oftentimes, a country with prevalent human rights abuses is unstable. Going into an unstable country invites more instability and, in turn, more human rights abuses because the people in aforesaid country have already chosen an immoral path of action and have no problem continuing or escalating. If the United States enters in a situation like that, then it is putting itself in danger. This idea upholds my value of self-preservation because putting oneself in a situation that could cause harm is not a wise course of action for someone who wishes to continue a prosperous life. Also, my value of security is upheld by this contention because a secure nation is one that does not put its citizens at risk.
Contention 4: The United States cannot work alone to solve human rights abuses like the resolution implies. The resolution interpreted with the information given implies that the United States is working alone because no other nations or organizations are mentioned. That is not the wisest course of action because cooperation in the international community would allow multiple countries to pool their resources and talents to best confront the country that is subjecting a population to human rights abuses. This upholds my value criterion of self-preservation as there is less risk in a group effort than in a solo effort. In addition, my value of security is upheld in that no nation would be putting themselves or their citizens in unmanageable danger.
United States President Jimmy Carter once said, “Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.”
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. I affirm the resolution.
Definitions are needed in order to better understand this resolution. The United States is defined as a country composed of the land,
people, and organizations that operate in the land area called the United States of America. To be justified means to be inside the realm of possibility. Intervening is to become present in for any purpose. Internal political processes are any actions of a government related to governing inside of their own country. Human rights abuses are actions done to lessen or eliminate the freedoms that all humans innately have.
Value: morality, or the way people must act because of the intrinsic nature of actions according to an ultimate morality. Morality best
upholds the resolution because it places human rights above internal political processes.
Value Criterion: human rights, or the way people ought to be treated because of their innate rights as defined in the United Nation’s
Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights uphold morality because preserving the sanctity of human rights regardless of the consequences is right because of its intrinsic nature.
Contention 1: The sanctity of human life is greater than the sanctity of government. Human rights abuses come from the intent to harm human life, for human life without rights is no life at all. Because humans compose, run, and allow for the existence of governments, they must be valued before the government that would not exist without them. Therefore, anything that preserves human life is justified. The United States can intervene in the internal political processes of other countries in order to stop human rights abuses because it protects humanity. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because human rights requires human life rather than human-created governments. Correspondingly, this upholds my value of morality because preserving man is
more moral than preserving manmade things.
Contention 2: Sanctification of human rights abuses comes when action like intervening in the political processes of other nations are not taken. If something bad happens to a country’s innocent citizens, then the United States allowed it to happen and must be okay with it if they do not take action. As a guiding force throughout the world, the United States must promote its worldview of being against human rights abuses by involving itself in other countries’ internal political processes. Other countries rely on our strength
and guidance. Doing nothing means that we approve, and, if one of the world’s most powerful countries approves of human rights abuses, then they will be approved by the rest of the world. Acting on the matter upholds my value criterion of human rights because it ensures that human rights abuses will stop, and this, in turn, holds up my value of morality because setting an example that
promotes morality is a moral thing to do.
Contention 3: If the United States knows that human rights abuses are wrong, then it cannot wait for other nations or governments to make the right decision of intervening in internal political processes. As a powerful, independent nation, the United States must take decisive action to stop human rights abuses by itself. It is very hard to miss human rights abuses or be mistaken because they are so blatantly against the rights of all humans as defined in the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. The only way to stop these abuses is to intervene in the political processes of other nations when necessary. The United States is justified in intervention because we have committed ourselves to upholding what is right. Taking actions without relying on other countries upholds my value criterion of human rights because doing so would end human rights abuses, and it also upholds my value because morality does not come from the sanctification of other governments.
Contention 4: Allowing human rights abuses to continue would jeopardize the safety of the citizens in the United States as well as others around the world. If one country crosses the line into abuse, then everything must be done to stop them because individuals in other countries will no longer fear the repercussions of such deplorable acts if the United States does nothing. Intervening in their internal political processes is justified in this manner because it will end human rights abuses all around the world. The United States must stop its escalation before it spreads to other countries, around the world, and even to the United States itself. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because taking action to end human rights abuses protects all of humanity by stopping the escalation of human rights abuses. This also upholds my value because human rights abuses ought not to be spread because of the amoral consequences of doing so.
Contention 5: Intervening in the internal political processes of a foreign nation is the only way to get to the cause of the human rights abuses. Too many times, people will merely send in humanitarian assistance with the goal of ending human rights abuses, but this does not work. Governments are the cause of human rights abuses either because they allow them to happen or because they encourage them themselves. Therefore, a government whose people are subjected to human rights abuses does not have the right to continue. People in a society enter into a social contract with their society, and, if that society fails to offer them the protection that they deserve based on that social contract, the government must be modified. The power of a government comes from the people. However, if that government allows human rights abuses to occur within its governed population or in another population, the government has stepped over the line of being a just government and becomes against the will of the people. The only way to fix a government that sanctifies human rights abuses is to change the government itself, and that can only come from intervening in its
internal political processes. This upholds my value criterion of human rights because it goes directly to the cause of human rights abuses and tries to eliminate them. Similarly, intervention because of this contention upholds my value because eliminating the cause of amoral actions are the best way to promote moral actions.
NEGATIVE
Winston Churchill once said, “Want of foresight [and] confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong- these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. I negate the resolution.
Definitions are needed in order to better understand this resolution. The United States is defined as the land, people, and organizations that operate in the land area called the United States of America. To be justified is to be reasonable based on logic and pragmatism. This resolution implies that the United States is the only force carrying out the resolution. Intervening is to interpose oneself in another’s affairs. Internal political processes are any actions of a government inside its own country. Human rights
abuses are actions done to lessen or eliminate the freedoms that all humans innately have.
Value: security, or the freedom from danger and presence of safety. This value best upholds the resolution because, without security, there would be no such thing as a country who has the potential to intervene in the political processes of other nations. The first goal of a country is to protect itself and its people.
Value Criterion: self-preservation, or the maintenance of oneself free of harm or destruction. Self-preservation upholds the value of
security because safety cannot be achieved without focusing on oneself before others.
Contention 1: Going into a foreign government does not ensure that human rights abuses will stop because governments and human rights abuses are not directly related. Therefore, intervention should not occur. Governments control and guide their populations, but, when it comes down to it, humans choose their own course of action. If people in a country decide to subject other people in that country to human rights abuses, then the government is limited in its course of action. Therefore, the United States may not be able to stop human rights abuses by intervening in the political processes of other nations. This idea upholds my value criterion of self-preservation because no one should do something as drastic as intervening in the political processes of other nations without knowing whether or not that action will be effective because of the risk to oneself. Similarly, this contention upholds my value of security because risks must be weighed with projected outcomes.
Contention 2: Interposing itself in the affairs of other nations could jeopardize the relations that the United States has with other countries. This can prevent the United States from dealing with human rights abuses in the future. If the United States establishes a pattern of intervention, then no country will want to seek US assistance. It is therefore necessary to prioritize intervention. This upholds my value criterion of self-preservation because the best way to protect oneself is to ensure that one can do so for a long time to come. Correspondingly, this contention upholds my value of security as all endeavors must be weighed against their consequences, both long-term and short-term.
Contention 3: If the country in which the United States intervenes does not want the United States there, then human rights abuses may escalate. Oftentimes, a country with prevalent human rights abuses is unstable. Going into an unstable country invites more instability and, in turn, more human rights abuses because the people in aforesaid country have already chosen an immoral path of action and have no problem continuing or escalating. If the United States enters in a situation like that, then it is putting itself in danger. This idea upholds my value of self-preservation because putting oneself in a situation that could cause harm is not a wise course of action for someone who wishes to continue a prosperous life. Also, my value of security is upheld by this contention because a secure nation is one that does not put its citizens at risk.
Contention 4: The United States cannot work alone to solve human rights abuses like the resolution implies. The resolution interpreted with the information given implies that the United States is working alone because no other nations or organizations are mentioned. That is not the wisest course of action because cooperation in the international community would allow multiple countries to pool their resources and talents to best confront the country that is subjecting a population to human rights abuses. This upholds my value criterion of self-preservation as there is less risk in a group effort than in a solo effort. In addition, my value of security is upheld in that no nation would be putting themselves or their citizens in unmanageable danger.
reflection
Process: Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate speeches are unique in terms of literary process. The first step, of course, is to brainstorm possible contentions (i.e. arguments). That being completed, the next step requires careful, meticulous research in order to find tricky contentions and definitions to trick one’s opponent. Once all of the preparation was completed, I chose a value and a value criterion for my negative and affirmative cases that would act as a commonality between all of my contentions. After that, I defined key terms in the resolution, and I compiled my research into contentions for both cases. Following this first draft, I was required to read the speeches over and over again until I was sure that there was no confusing wording and they did not exceed the time limit for the debate speeches. I used these cases for multiple debates, and, during debates, I heavily modified my contentions. Thus, by the end of these cases’ short lives, they were completely different from when I first wrote them. To be sure, the process of writing debate speeches is never really done because no set of arguments is above rebuttal.
Product: I like many things about my product, and all of the parts I like are those that went well in the debate rounds. First, my overall conversational tone and speeches drew many comments from various judges, all of which were positive. Every debater has his or her own debate style, and mine is a calm, cool presentation of theory-based arguments, which is often considered traditional LD debating. More specifically, I like my employment of P.P.E. in this piece of writing because it ensured that I would never lose sight of my value and my value criterion, which are the most important parts of the case. No judge said that they were confused about my arguments when I used my refined version of these cases. Finally, I like this case because of the ideas expressed throughout them. Lincoln Douglas Debate is fun because I have to debate both sides of a controversial issue, and the juxtaposition of my arguments in my head makes for ameliorated arguments in general. This resolution was a lot of fun, and my cases reflect that.
Growth: This writing undoubtedly made me grow as a writer and learn new things. I learned how to write a good, solid LD case throughout this experience that took me past Districts and to Regionals. This was only achieved by research in what makes a good debate case and practice with peers, coaches, and judges. In terms of writing, I learned how to best create a simply worded case that expresses complex philosophical ideas. Debating is hard because I had to convince someone else (the judge) that my ideas were better than my opponent’s ideas, and that can only be done with intense thought and preparation. To be sure, I end up learning a lot from extracurricular activities outside a classroom environment.
Improvement: There is always room for improvement. I think the worst part of this case was my value criterion of human rights in my affirmative case. This was severely attacked by my opponents because they claimed that human rights could not be clearly defined because people of different cultures have different definitions of human rights. I decided to avoid this problem by saying, on the fly, that human rights abuses were defined by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, but that caused some other problems in terms of the U.N.’s scope and representation of minorities. Another area for improvement would be my number of affirmative contentions. My affirmative case was easily read in time during my constructive speech, but, when I got to the rebuttals, my case went terribly because I did not leave enough time to elaborately defend my contentions and still attack those of my opponent. Also, this case needs to be improved because, in both my affirmative and negative cases, my value criterion did not tie in very well with my value. This could be improved by adding another contention specifically related to my value and value criterion. Finally, this case really needs some evidence. I am a theory debater, but some judges really hate that, and I experienced their negative feedback more often that I ought to have. This year was my first year debating Lincoln Douglas, and, despite some errors, I did quite well.
Product: I like many things about my product, and all of the parts I like are those that went well in the debate rounds. First, my overall conversational tone and speeches drew many comments from various judges, all of which were positive. Every debater has his or her own debate style, and mine is a calm, cool presentation of theory-based arguments, which is often considered traditional LD debating. More specifically, I like my employment of P.P.E. in this piece of writing because it ensured that I would never lose sight of my value and my value criterion, which are the most important parts of the case. No judge said that they were confused about my arguments when I used my refined version of these cases. Finally, I like this case because of the ideas expressed throughout them. Lincoln Douglas Debate is fun because I have to debate both sides of a controversial issue, and the juxtaposition of my arguments in my head makes for ameliorated arguments in general. This resolution was a lot of fun, and my cases reflect that.
Growth: This writing undoubtedly made me grow as a writer and learn new things. I learned how to write a good, solid LD case throughout this experience that took me past Districts and to Regionals. This was only achieved by research in what makes a good debate case and practice with peers, coaches, and judges. In terms of writing, I learned how to best create a simply worded case that expresses complex philosophical ideas. Debating is hard because I had to convince someone else (the judge) that my ideas were better than my opponent’s ideas, and that can only be done with intense thought and preparation. To be sure, I end up learning a lot from extracurricular activities outside a classroom environment.
Improvement: There is always room for improvement. I think the worst part of this case was my value criterion of human rights in my affirmative case. This was severely attacked by my opponents because they claimed that human rights could not be clearly defined because people of different cultures have different definitions of human rights. I decided to avoid this problem by saying, on the fly, that human rights abuses were defined by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, but that caused some other problems in terms of the U.N.’s scope and representation of minorities. Another area for improvement would be my number of affirmative contentions. My affirmative case was easily read in time during my constructive speech, but, when I got to the rebuttals, my case went terribly because I did not leave enough time to elaborately defend my contentions and still attack those of my opponent. Also, this case needs to be improved because, in both my affirmative and negative cases, my value criterion did not tie in very well with my value. This could be improved by adding another contention specifically related to my value and value criterion. Finally, this case really needs some evidence. I am a theory debater, but some judges really hate that, and I experienced their negative feedback more often that I ought to have. This year was my first year debating Lincoln Douglas, and, despite some errors, I did quite well.