I compete in the NCFCA (National Christian Forensic and Communication Association), which is a homeschool High School speech and debate league (the third largest in the nation, after NFL and NCFL). The debate resolution for this year (for Lincoln-Douglas Debate) is
Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.
Thoughts and Opinions? I personally think that arguing against this is incredible easy on so many levels, yet arguing for this will be a pain in the Angle Side Side...
Well, Debates are always set up be arguable from both sides. Personally, I'd argue against that statement. But the real value of being a debater is learning to argue for things you DON'T agree with. Because taking time to see any statement from the opposition's view will either buttress your own argument, or change your opinion when you're wrong. People in general would be better and cumulatively less stupid if they actually took the time to look at the opposing view's argument, especially in things like politics. Look at any recent "hot topic"- In America that would be Obamacare. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people both for and against the thing have not taken the time to research the specifics and examine the opposing viewpoint. Okay, my rant is over.
For your topic specifically- I'd agree with you that arguing against this is a lot easier. If you need to argue for it, you'll need to heavily rely on pathos. Get people to feel bad for those poor 3rd world/warn-torn countries, etc.... Perhaps appeal to the age-old saying "Treat others as you would have them treat you".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Feel free to Send me a PM if you have any questions/concerns!
@Rodrigo, Yes I said debatesssss, maybe you can come up with some new topics from this thread.
@zelda, I agree, the beauty of formal HS/College debate is training people from a reasonable early age to examine both sides of an argument before making judgements. (In both Lincoln Douglas and Team Policy Debate, (the styles NCFCA supports, though I wish parliamentary was supported) debates have to prepare cases for both sides of the resolution because at a tournament they will argue both at least 3 times. Last year it was a little bit more focused:
Resolved: In the pursuit of Justice, Due Process aught to be valued above the Discovery of Fact
and a bit easier to argue from both sides. I personally preferred affirming that resolution, but it was easy to shift to arguing that Truth absolutely needed to reach justice in any circumstance that isn't dumb luck.
Anyway, on this resolution, another important distinction is between Morals and Ethics. Because this is a Christian league the distinction can be made that God defines morals; morals being an absolute right and wrong. Man's ethics are merely an interpretation on what we should and should not do. While an atheist would not make that distinction, someone who is religious would consider it to be very important.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I compete in the NCFCA (National Christian Forensic and Communication Association), which is a homeschool High School speech and debate league (the third largest in the nation, after NFL and NCFL). The debate resolution for this year (for Lincoln-Douglas Debate) is
Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.
Thoughts and Opinions? I personally think that arguing against this is incredible easy on so many levels, yet arguing for this will be a pain in the Angle Side Side...
(No, this is not a desperate plea for you to write cases for me, I have some lined up already, just discussion material. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html is a good article to read to get those creative juices flowing!)
@AnOddRadish: Go
Did somebody say Debatesss?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWell, Debates are always set up be arguable from both sides. Personally, I'd argue against that statement. But the real value of being a debater is learning to argue for things you DON'T agree with. Because taking time to see any statement from the opposition's view will either buttress your own argument, or change your opinion when you're wrong. People in general would be better and cumulatively less stupid if they actually took the time to look at the opposing view's argument, especially in things like politics. Look at any recent "hot topic"- In America that would be Obamacare. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people both for and against the thing have not taken the time to research the specifics and examine the opposing viewpoint. Okay, my rant is over.
For your topic specifically- I'd agree with you that arguing against this is a lot easier. If you need to argue for it, you'll need to heavily rely on pathos. Get people to feel bad for those poor 3rd world/warn-torn countries, etc.... Perhaps appeal to the age-old saying "Treat others as you would have them treat you".
@Rodrigo, Yes I said debatesssss, maybe you can come up with some new topics from this thread.
@zelda, I agree, the beauty of formal HS/College debate is training people from a reasonable early age to examine both sides of an argument before making judgements. (In both Lincoln Douglas and Team Policy Debate, (the styles NCFCA supports, though I wish parliamentary was supported) debates have to prepare cases for both sides of the resolution because at a tournament they will argue both at least 3 times. Last year it was a little bit more focused:
Resolved: In the pursuit of Justice, Due Process aught to be valued above the Discovery of Fact
and a bit easier to argue from both sides. I personally preferred affirming that resolution, but it was easy to shift to arguing that Truth absolutely needed to reach justice in any circumstance that isn't dumb luck.
Anyway, on this resolution, another important distinction is between Morals and Ethics. Because this is a Christian league the distinction can be made that God defines morals; morals being an absolute right and wrong. Man's ethics are merely an interpretation on what we should and should not do. While an atheist would not make that distinction, someone who is religious would consider it to be very important.