The US Should Provide Democratic Ideals...

And yes, I reallize I contradicted myself many times, I was throwing out ideas for both cases. HELP!!!!!

what TFA tournament? cuz i do mainly TFA...

I am talking about the WTAMU tournament in Canyon. If you're going to be there, or have been before, (pm) me drunkpunk.

do any of you have a case that i could borrow or could you help me if so my email is [email protected]

ant, if you're gonna provide your email address, you might wanna consider posting it in a manner that prevents spambots from harvesting it ... something like (myusername) - at - (my email server) - dot - domain. In your case that would be typed out as:

Humans can easily figure that out, but the automated programs that crawl forums, message boards, blogs, and newsgroups for email addresses can't - at least yet, anyway.

thanks

if a woman liveing next door to you were being treated the way the women in afganistan were whould you turn a blind eye?

theres more to it than weather or not they are a threat

Help on case
hey i asked one of the judges of my debate tourney and he said that the best values are the ones that answer these ?'s
1. what is being evaluated?
2. what is the appropriate standard for evaluiting it?
3. does the thing being evaluated meet the standard?

duh, thats the way for every resolution ever... but you're prolly NLD, right?

i still can't think of how the United States could have a moral obligation. i haven't been able to prove anything of that sort in by aff. rounds, im 2/6 on aff. the neg has it the easiest and can prove there's no moral obligation or if the aff doesn't prove the burden then its easy to distract the aff from the moral obligation and just say why democracy isn't good. i find that route the funnest when your opponent just talks of the goods of democracy, just say that democracy sucks and say why then say they fail to prove their burden of why we have a moral obligation. its easy as hell to prove why we dont have an obligation.

but after almost a month of working on this topic i still cant get a good idea for aff and my record shows that. i was lucky this weekend and got to be neg in octos, but i lost the toss and the round in quarters. anybody know any good aff ideas or if you don't debate how we have this moral obligation. i can't find any philiosophy that can easily prove universal morality... help!

what is your definition of moral obligation?
the one principle that enables civilization to exist is the idea that we are all connected to eachother through a common purpose , that purpose , when it is striped down to it's base is simply to have a peacfull envieroment to prosoue our individual goals and raise the next generation to sustain it's self. procreation is the one instinct that is stronger than self preservation , as evident when parents would almost always sacrifice there life for that of the offspring.this links a strong feeling of moral obligation to destroy any threat of harm not only to self and to country , but also to threats toward thoses we identify with . in a country where people are being oppressed we see familys being deprived of that common thread to prosoue happiness . we do not want to turn a blind eye , because when picturing ourselves in that situation we would not want to be abandon by the rest of humanity . also feeding this impulse to defend others are many cases in history in witch , when a danger posed its self to one mass of people , and was left unchallenged , that danger will often times expand to harm more . also taught by history , a government with free election and free trade is the best tool for keeping the common good of people represented by the nation.

hope that helps dear , i'm sure i could come up with a dozen other ways to argue a moral obligation let me know if ya need more.

btw you can make a valid argument for just about anything , it's being able to present it in the most appealing way that can be hard.

Re: democratic ideals


I would recommend you look up and study the "socilist movement of Europe from years 1848-1917. it may help you to better define the differences between ,socialism , capitalism ans the relationship they have with democracy.

i define moral obligation as:

1)moral obligation- a duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. These obligations are of two kinds 1st. Those founded on a natural right; as, the obligation to be charitable, which can never be enforced by law. 2d. Those which are supported by a good or valuable antecedent consideration; as, where a man owes a debt barred by the act of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law, though it subsists in morality and conscience; but if the debtor promise to pay it, the moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for the promise, and the creditor may maintain an action of assumption, to recover the money.

its ok, but not solid... i need something good, i like what kflux said, but i argue some of those same things... that we need to keep people in other countries safe from opressive govs. and protect their rights, but thats to easily beat in a round. all the neg then has to do is 1) prove that the US is actually doing more harm than good when it promotes dem. ideals
and 2) prove that dems. or dem. ideals don't even make sure that opressive govs. can't rise up. hitler and sadam were both elected by the people they later opressed. and free elections are a dem. ideal

see thats where i need help, i proving that no matter the consequences a moral obligation still stands. something to say that you still have to save a drowning baby even if you could drown along with it...

I can debate either case pretty much the same. It was funny, at my last tournament, i was on neg, and aff came out with a pre-case observation of how gov. CAN have a moral obligation, because it is in the interest of the common good (or SSS), and i had a observation of how it COULND'T. I won, but i think it was because mine was shorter, and more to the point. (Avram Noam Chomsky) Anywayz Drunkpunk, as a value, maybe look at COSMOPOLITANISM, because it provides for a moral community, or CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, because it is based on moral means. I like the drowning baby analogy, too. Work it in.

I need a quote.
I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but I need help on finding a quote for my debate. I need a quote that either says we need liberty or equality to have economic security or a quote that says we need democracy to have freedom. Please to not consider liberty and freedom the same thing in this instance because in LD (Lincoln-Douglas) debate even synonyms can have different meanings. Thankyou.

Re: I need a quote.


try going to www.quotationspage.com

you can look up 1000's of quotes by subject or author
i'm sure you find find at least a dozen quotes for any point on any subject.

keeping in mind that i am pretty much trying to give you possible options to argue for war in the name of democracy , witch is something much of the world has argued for the better part of two centuries and no one has really won yet , i'll give it a shot.

1. why should we save the drowning baby ?
to address this i would make the pointe that moral obligation is an emotional response to the given situation , so logic plays only a secondary role , witch changes the prospective of the situation.i have already explained why instinct envokes said emotion in my earlier post.

2. can they prove that the US is actually doing more harm than good ?
try looking at the long term effects of the opresion rather than the short term effects of war . War is ugly theres no getting around it , but how many people would die in the future if the oppressive government were to stay in power , and what would the quality of life be .pretty much every war in the world for the last hundred years has some example of this , including the cold war. Do some research to find the best examples , then weigh it against the opposing examples , argue that logic tells us we are more likely to do good.

3. Do we have the military power?
you haven't mentioned it yet , but be ready to argue it . takeing on a task witch one cannot finish spells disaster , so be prepared with the #'s that say we have enough man power and money.

4. if they try make a point of democracy not making sure new oppressive governments will not form.

once again fall back on the logic of likeliness backed by historical record over the long term not the short. having made the pointe that moral obligations foundation is formed on emotion and instinct , the logic of likeliness can validly come in to play . nothing in politics or war could ever be 100% foreseen or proven , witch will negate the opposing argument to a slight degree.

5. i would also be ready with statistics on how one nations oppression spreads and how it effects public opinion of bordering nations.

Also a few pointers.
making a case based on likelihoods and emotion in the format of a formal debate can be a bit tricky . The KEY is in delivery, and you can win almost every time .

1 . Never make an outright emotional plea. Instead , use basic word assocation exp: casualtys = dead , young=child , war = battle or struggle ,
the list goes on and on . inorder to make the words sink into the subcousious tone of voice should rarely take the form of outrage , try to covey sympathy , the same should apply to face expresion and gestures. Eye contact with the audience not your opponit is key when using emotionally sugestive words.

2 Always appear to be coffident yet comfortable when stating any logic based part of your debate . try to make eye contact with your opponit during these statements , with only 1 second glances to your audience, to short of glance and you will appear to be looking for their approval , to long of one and you will not seem to be confronting your oponit with certainty.

3. keep you summary short and state it with simple wording . Statements essayer to remember make a longer lasting impact .

4. stand up straight , and don't scowl .
just look at bushes first debate vs his second

your style should change drastically depending on the format of the debate , as well as with the type of audience.

The US has a moral obligation to help other nations: to form allies and because it is ethically correct and honorable, but the US tries to control the world which creates enemies. Where do you draw the line for helping people?
Democracy stems from the Greeks and the Romans. Both of their empires fell. Just as the US is starting to do. Why should we promote our fatal ideals in other nations who may have humongous mistakes, but from them can learn humongous lessons?
How would the US go about promoting democratic ideals in other nations without encroaching on thieir ideals and creating hatred? (plan)

1. dose the US try to control the world?
military ocupation must alway exercise a degree of control in order to achieve it's goals , as well as to protect it's self. As long as this is only a temporary ocupation set up to govern while a new government can be formed , and the new government is elected by the mass population , the US is not trying to control the world. a more valid question would be , do the ends justify the means.

2.greeks and romans fell just as the US is starting to do?
the economic sector of the ancient governments were drastically different from that of modern democracy , in order for a nation to fall it must either collapse economically , or be overthrown by military means . the US has diversified it's economy enough to avoid another drastic fall, and our military is the strongest in the world . Try looking up the history of economic trends , the spiral theory is a good place to start.

3. how can the US promote democracy without creating hatred?
the only ideals the US is promoting is that the people of that nation should have the right to choose their own ideals , and elect a government that represents thoses chosen . The people that profited from the government that is being overthrown will always hate the opposing power , this is to be expected . however after the ugliness of war is over , the common citizen will realize the possibility for profit within the greater mass population , in addition to being able to see the new found free expression without fear of their familys being killed . the calm after the storm can be predicted with one simple equation , does the # people that will do well under the new government out number those that faired well under the old government ?this should be looked at from a , in the long run vs the short term , view point

I am also on my forensic team at school and we are starting on this topic. the resolution we are working on though says that : The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations? do you feel the united states has a moral obligation to do this?