Ld january february topic 2019 brief

January Public Forum Brief

Powered by Joomla! News Newsletters. September - October Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.

September - October Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources. January - February Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system. November - December Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations. January - February Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

November - December Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. September - October Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power. November - December Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. September - October Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

March - April Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens. January - February Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage. November - December Resolved: The "right to be forgotten" from Internet searches ought to be a civil right. September - October Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. March-April Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

Lincoln Douglas - March-April 2020 - Predictive Policing

January-February Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. November-December Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.

March - April Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. January - February Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system. November - December Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens. September - October Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

March - April Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. January - February Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. November - December Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

September - October Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights. March - April Resolved:The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

January - February Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.Register Forgot password? Apply Code. Login to Purchase Submit Don't have an account? Product Details.

Our briefs for Public Forum Debate are powerful tools because of their structure, quality, and quantity of included arguments. Each brief includes topic analyses by highly reputable coaches and alumni, who diligently dissect the resolution and offer a unique perspective. Following this section, we provide you with background information on the topic before delving into the arguments themselves.

Our briefs include 15 heavily warranted arguments on each side of the topic. Every argument is paired with blocks and answers to ensure that you are prepared for anything. Our expert writers provide analysis for every argument and answer to provide a better understanding of the argument logic.

Nov/Dec Lincoln-Douglas Brief

Our briefs for Lincoln-Douglas Debate, like our Public Forum briefs, are fundamentally different than other available briefs.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is moving quickly in two different directions: traditional and progressive. We realized that no other brief approaches the event with this knowledge in mind.

Our briefs provide both traditional and progressive style analysis and argumentation to ensure that every debater is well prepared, no matter what style they follow. Each brief includes four topic analyses from the Champions of major national tournaments, some being traditional debaters and some progressive.

Following this, we provide you with basic and advanced frameworks and theory shells to help you achieve an understanding of the plethora of approaches to the topic. We believe that our briefs will provide you with the most developed understanding of every topic and every perspective.I affirm the resolution resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

For clarity, I offer the following definitions:. Morally permissible acts are those which are not prohibited by valid moral laws. Deadly force is defined as an amount of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury to another person.

A victim is an individual who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Since the phrase "deliberate response" in the resolution implies that the victim was provoked by the attacker, we know that the victim, in this sense, would only use deadly force if provoked.

The resolution does not contain a universal qualifier such as the word "all", enabling me to defend a general statement. Furthermore, forcing me to defend the application of the resolution in all circumstances would destroy reciprocity which is a key to fairness. I value justice which is the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Justice mandates the existence of basic human rights for at least those individuals who are innocent. These human rights must be described in terms of relationships among people. A human right is a contractual right that imposes upon all others the necessary and universal duty to act or refrain from acting in a certain way.

Human rights should not be confused with possessions, like an apple or a house. The only way societies can inculcate such a strong sense of duty in their members is by giving them a self-interested reason for conforming to morality. As the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg observed, a large proportion of the population is not motivated by an unselfish concern for others. Julie Hough explains, "On the basis of his research, Kohlberg identified six stages of moral reasoning.

At the first level, a person's moral judgments are focused on avoiding breaking rules that are backed by punishment. The reasoning of stage one is characterized by ego-centrism and the inability to consider the perspectives of others. The stage two orientation focuses on the instrumental, pragmatic value of an action. Morality is of the form, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. In other words, people in the first stage of moral development will only conform to societal rules if they avoid harm in doing so.

Meanwhile, people in the second stage of moral development will follow these rules only if they directly benefit from doing so. Clearly, individuals in both of these stages will not be motivated by an entirely selfless concern for the interests of others. Therefore, if we want to protect human rights in general, we must give these individuals a self-interested reason to fulfill their duties to others. To accomplish this goal, societies must uphold the social contract. The social contract is an agreement between citizens to refrain from violating each other's basic rights.

January/February 2019 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Briefs

This contract produces unique benefits for those who choose to accept it. As Robert Grant notes, "Human rights are the benefits negotiated by reasonable persons and received by each of them as a result of their agreement to accept the natural duties imposed by the social contract. Human rights are the consideration for the obligations assumed under that fundamental agreement. In other words, under the social contract, individuals can earn their basic rights only by fulfilling duties to each other.In terms of policy affs, one option is to defend the entire resolution and make arguments about why a world without nuclear weapons is safer than a world with them because nuclear weapons increase the likelihood of accidental conflicts that could result in mass death and potentially even in extinction.

Another option is to read affs about loose nukes, which are poorly guarded nuclear weapons that could potentially be acquired by terrorist organizations. Some debaters may also specify individual countries that ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The strategic value of this is that it will allow debaters to avoid generic links to many disads that are predicated on all states eliminating their nuclear arsenals while also being able to solve specific advantages for example, an aff that advocates for India and Pakistan eliminating their nuclear arsenals could claim to solve Indo-Pak war.

Another possible route is to specify particular types of nuclear weapons that are particularly dangerous. Advantages for these affs should be based on why one or several types of weapons are especially dangerous in a way that other types of nuclear weapons are not. There is also a lot of ground for soft left and critical affirmatives. For example, some debaters may read affs about how nuclear weapons are important weapons of militarism - both symbolically and literally.

These debaters will likely argue that all states eliminating their nuclear weapons is thus an important first step towards a less militaristic, more peaceful world. Another route is to focus on the extreme amount of spending and resources allocated to nuclear weapons development, which often comes at the cost of things like welfare or education programs that could potentially improve the lives of oppressed groups.

In terms of philosophy affs, people will likely argue that nuclear weapons are inherently unethical because they constitute disproportionate punishment and strip civilians of their liberty.

Topicality will likely be a common strategy against plan affs. Similarly, against affs that fiat multiple states eliminate their nuclear arsenals but not that all states eliminate their nuclear arsenalssome debaters may make claims about why plans are bad and why affirmatives should defend the entire resolution.

There is also a lot of critical ground on this topic. In terms of policy strategies, one popular route will be simply to argue that nuclear weapons make the world a safer place. Some people argue that nuclear weapons decrease the likelihood that countries engage in conflict of any kind by acting as a meaningful deterrent.

People may also read hegemony disadvantages, which address the important role of nuclear weapons in maintaining US hegemony because despite the fact that there may be some ways in which the US lags behind other countries militarily i. Thus, eliminating nuclear weapons would undermine US military supremacy by providing an advantage to China, which has the most active military personnel in the world. These disads could also be coupled with advantage counterplans that take precautions to make nuclear weapons safer or decrease the number of nuclear weapons.

These strategies must have a reason for why specific countries need nuclear weapons. Thus, many feminist international relations scholars argue for nuclear disarmament as an important tool to building a better, less patriarchical world.

For debaters who want to read feminist criticisms on the negative, they will likely have to criticize the representations of affirmatives as opposed to the plans itself. Many of the generic kritik arguments described above can also be applied to a feminism kritik.

ld january february topic 2019 brief

Additionally, debaters may criticize the representation of war as a singular event that can be prevented by a specific policy and instead advocate for a more inclusive view of war that considers things like structural violence as an ongoing wars against marginalized populations.

Cart 0. Back Memes! Alexandra Mork December 5, Facebook 0 Twitter Pinterest 0 0 Likes. HW Debate January 10, HW Debate November 22, Prepping for the April topic in Public Forum?

Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Anna Kate Lembke about the military presence in the Persian Gulf topic! Prepping for the March topic in Public Forum? Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Anna Kate Lembke about the nuclear energy topic!

ld january february topic 2019 brief

Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Adam Tomasi about the predictive policing topic! Prepping for the January topic in Public Forum?

ld january february topic 2019 brief

Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Zachary Ginsberg about the Venezuelan economic sanctions topic! Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Adam Tomasi about the nuclear arsenals topic! Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Zachary Ginsberg about the offensive cyber operations topic! Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Adam Tomasi about the fossil fuels topic!

Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Adam Tomasi about the standardized testing topic! Our writers will offer the pros and cons of the two topic options to help you make an informed decision before you vote.

January/February LD debate topic

Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Daniel Shatzkin about the revolutions! Want to learn more about the June Public Forum topic on antitrust regulations for technology giants? Here's some advice from Danny Siegel about how to succeed! Here's an in-depth, high-level topic analysis from Adam Tomasi about the military aid! Want to learn more about the March Public Forum topic on housing and urban development?

Here's some insight advice from Will Watson about how to succeed! Here's some insight advice from Zach Ginsberg about how to succeed! Want to learn more about the January Public Forum topic on federal debt and economic growth? Here's some insight from Adam Tomasi about how to succeed! Here's some insight advice from Zachary Ginsberg about how to succeed!By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.

Google Search. Post Your Opinion. Create New Poll. Sign In Sign Up. Follow debateorg. The Instigator. Do you like this debate? Report this Argument. It seems my opponent has failed to respond back in time for round 3.

In order to maintain fairness in the round I will not respond to any arguments any further. I hope my opponent will respond for round 4 in time.

I await my opponents responses for round 4. Post a Comment. Report this Vote. You are not eligible to vote on this debate. This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges. Thank you. Con I just realized since Neg goes first there's nothing for me to rebut.

So Aff will present a case and rebuttal to my case in the second round. Also I apologize for the case being rather short since this is the case I use at actual debate tournaments Since we need institutions of Justice in order to make sure Justice is served negate the resolution: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated Domestic Violence.

It is necessary to understand how we will weigh the arguments in this round the resolution asks is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. So the resolved presents the issue of Repeated Domestic Violence and offers Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response as a justified answer, but if we were to justify the resolved then we would be justifying vigilantism because we are saying it is ok to take the law into your own hands.

The resolved is justifying Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response because it delivers Justice but at the point where we justify Vigilantism we are undermining institutions of Justice and Justice is lost because without these institutions Justice can't be delivered.

Therefore my Value for this round is justice; Justice is defined as giving each their fair due. The reason I value Justice is because the resolved seeks it. The resolved presents the issue of Domestic Violence and justifies Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response to end this issue. My opponent must defend the statement that the use of Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response gains more justice than loses.

I on the other hand must defend the statement that it loses more justice than gains. My Value Criterion is to uphold Institutions that provide Justice.

These institutions include the police force, and the due process system. So whoever can better uphold these Institutions of Justice should win the round. Contention I: The Aff creates a world of anarchy where people are able to take others natural rights without any consequences.

My concern, however, is not with the case of the woman who uses deadly force against her abuser during an attack or because of an immediately impending one; rather, my focus is on the morally perplexing situation of the battered woman who kills her tormenter when he is not attacking, or about to attack, her. By definition, of course, no assault is taking place or imminent in nonconfrontational cases.

Stemming from the common law, a core feature of self defense law is that the life of every person, even that of an aggressor, should not be terminated if there is a less extreme way to resolve the problem. Joshua Dressler 2 I fear that the result of expanding self-defense law to the extent required to justify the killing of a sleeping abuser would be the coarsening of our moral values about human life and, perhaps, even the condonation of homicidal vengeance.For more topicsclick here.

For more topicsclick…. Current Topics We invite you to incorporate issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion into your speech and debate activities. Explore our Extemp questions, Impromptu questions, and Congress legislation focused on these important topics. Lincoln-Douglas Debate — Novice Topic…. Finally, the compressed format, and scope of the topics also gave me an opportunity to engage in really enjoyable debate on topics that I would never have been able to without it.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate In this one-on-one format, students debate a…. Karl Boyle spent all year researching and phrasing topics of equal merit. Topic areas were selected and a different area was used in each round. All the topics in a round were…. Visit our Nationals page to learn more about this prestigious event.

High School Topics Policy Debate Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the…. This workshop will be led by Dr. Topics will include…. Home info speechanddebate. Search for:.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *