ya thats what we're talkin about, they realized that aways back. but can anyone think of eastern philosophers who go aff...? help
Niccolo Machiavelli is a well know but somewhat disliked philosopher who said much about similar issuses . try "The Prince" and the "Art of War". Also look up some quotes from leaders during wwII .
i need a definition for democratic ideals. neone have ne ideas?
umm... go to the state department site, they say what their mission is and explain what a democracy is, you can just take some of the things they say and lump that all in to a definition. thats what i did...
Definition of Promote
Many of the posts on this site are being quite ignorant of the fact that promote or provide w/e the resolution is saying can be interpreted differently. You can have the extreme definition which is to superimpose democracy, which is what many people are saying but you can also have a definition like to advertise or to promote by model which sadly many people are forgetting.
Actually, i use the advertising form of promote, and i believe that it is on this post earlier on. But you're right, we have been getting off topic. Dreadfully sorry. But you see, since promote can be defined multiple ways, it can be debated almost equally on both sides. It is evened out though. while aff can debate that "promote" is to advertise, neg can debate that a "moral" obligation is nonexistent for a body or state, because of the diversity of cultures it represents.
actually i think that the resolution infers some form of promotion to ensure the goods of democratic ideals. otherwise we would be debating about picking between a red and a green apple. action has to be taken otherwise there isnt a guarantee that the United States is even fulfilling its moral obligation. If you dont act on a moral obligation then you are going to feel bad in conscience, so the united states has to do something other than advertising democracy or leading by example. We could say that we have a moral obligation to save a drowning baby and that to fulfill our moral obligation we will start swimming and then they can follow our example or we can advertise how good swimming is and how easy it is, either of which the baby has no chance of getting any better off. The United States is the strong, able-bodied adult and the other nations are multiple drowning babies. if we're going to save them and make their countries better, which about 99% of all affs. argue, then we have to act forceably or with economic sanctions, either of which has devastation repurcussions that the neg. can exploit. And, if the aff. can successfully prove a moral obligation, the neg. can use the negative harms on the nations population on voiding any moral obligation. Saying that if we are going to go out and save the baby, but end up drowning it we would have never had the moral obligation. Now the neg. just has to talk about past failures and the devastating repurcussions on the population when we've promoted democracy in the past. THere are many cases in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East(Iraq dammit) where we've either gone in militarily or imposed sanctions to get the nations to adopt democratic ideals(Cuba) and casused horrible cases of human suffering. But, then the aff. could say that if we are ultimately going to cause harm, in one particular case, then we dont have a moral obigation in that case, but we still have a moral obligation to the other nations. Then again they could say that as long as we try we are fulfilling our moral obligation, and if it starts to get bad because of internal resistance then we can pull out because the people want us out. If anyone can prove that we have a moral obligation no matter what the consequences, then the affirmative would win always, but since judges have tended to vote negative, i think that the affirmatives fail to uphold their obligation, either when it gets worse or just over all. I went 5-1 at the University of Texas Tournament, and i got eliminated in the octo-finals, but that was still o.k. because the first year that beat me deserved to win...
wow, i really liked that. Too bad I am done debating this topic. Unfortunatly, i never broke. Well, i guess I could admit that as a novice debating experienced, I did not have the best chance (unlike your first year) but i am proud of myself. I went 2-1 at Amarillo, being beaten by a 4-year by only 1 point. I missed breaking by 1 point. Ouch. Well, I am going to see if there is a posting for the new jan/feb topic, if not, i guess i will make one. c ya
