LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE RESOLVED: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. THE STEPS: 1.

Interpret/analyze the resolution 2. Consider current events that illustrate the topic 3. Define key terms: mitigate, international conflicts, moral obligation 4. Generate a list of case ideas/possible contentions 5. Based on your list of ideas, determine your VALUE PREMISE and your VALUE CRITERION 6. Choose your two strongest contentions (be certain you can articulate how they connect to your criterion and your premise). 7. Use the standard structure when building your case 8. Substantiate your case with evidence "The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts" First, break the topic into some subparts so that you make sure you understand what's really being said. Here are the key subparts of this topic: # the United States # moral obligation # mitigate # international conflicts In other words, to debate this topic we'll need to find ways to explain why the US should be concerned about problems in other parts of the world and why the US should try to do something about it. And we'll need to focus on "moral" or "ethical reasons"

for being concerned about these problems. Current events that illustrate the topic The second step is to think of current day examples suggested by this topic -- things going on in the world today that this topic seems to be addressing. Some examples that come to mind here are: # the war in Afghanistan # the Iraq war # terrorism and counter-terrorism # crises such as HIV/AIDS, starvation, and extreme poverty # the standoff with the North Koreans over their nuclear program # the conflict at the United Nations over the US role in Iraq # refugee flow over borders due to armed conflicts and harsh economic conditions in poor countries # the Mid East crisis and US efforts to mediate the conflict between Palestinians and Israel

First Key Definition: mitigate The next step is to look up some key words in the resolution. Here the key definition you will need is "mitigate" - "to cause to become less harsh or hostile, to make less severe or painful" [from Merriam-Webster online dictionary ]. In other words, to "mitigate an international conflict" is to somehow help to solve it, or to lessen its harm or impact on innocent victims. It will also be useful to look up definitions of "moral obligation" and "international conflict.

Lets begin by approaching this from the AFFIRMATIVE standpoint. With a partner, list as many contentions as you can for the resolution: "The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts" Remember: you are on the affirmative you have to defend why the US has a moral obligation to try to help others in times of crisis. * * * * Here are some additional ideas. Please choose what you regard as the three STRONGEST ideas from the list below and add them to the ideas that you and your partner generated: # the duty of the world's only superpower to be a role model, a good neighbor and to help others in need # that the privilege of being a mighty nation comes with it the obligation of helping those less well off than us # the duty of a rich nation to help poor nations # our moral obligation not to stand by and watch innocent victims being slaughtered, tortured, harmed or deprived of their essential human rights and fundamental freedoms # the basic notion of universal human rights - that they apply to everyone and deserve protection anywhere in the world where they are being violated # the golden rule - we should help others in need, because we would want them to help us when we are in need # our own national security - the US has a moral obligation to protect its own people. If we fail to help resolve conflicts elsewhere in the world, the danger is that they will eventually

spread to our own country # Our country stands for freedom throughout the world, and as such we have a duty to defend freedom whenever it is in jeopardy

Now we put it all together and build an affirmative case. First you need a value and criteria for your case. Basically this means you need some "lofty ideal" or general principle (the value) and some way to measure it (the criteria). For example, if I decide from my research that my main reasons or case ideas will be 1) helping innocent victims in a crisis and 2) using our role as world superpower for the betterment of mankind, then my VALUE could be JUSTICE and my CRITERION could be 1) UTLITARIANISM (greatest good for the greatest number) or HUMAN RIGHTS.

Structure is the key in winning LD debate rounds, especially as a novice. The key structural elements of an affirmative case are # introduction, # statement of the resolution, # key definitions, # value and criteria # reasons (contentions) # conclusion

Sample affirmative case Introduction: "Because I believe the U.S. has a special moral obligation to help others in times of world conflict, and that this obligation comes from international human rights values, I support the resolution today that Statement of the resolution: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts Key definitions: I define "mitigate" according to the MerriamWebster Online Dictionary as "to cause to become less harsh or hostile, to make less severe or painful" Value and Criteria: My value in today's debate will JUSTICE and my criterion will be UTILITARIANISM. Contentions: My case has two contentions. 1. The U.S. has a moral obligation to help victims in times of international conflict and 2. The U.S. has a moral obligation to be a responsible world leader in times of international conflict Conclusion: In conclusion, I have shown why the value of human rights creates a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts and how mitigation is achieved, through my criteria of helping

victims and responsible leadership." This case structure is not enough of course. You need to add some evidence quotes at key points. More on that later . . .
Building a negative case - the structural elements The key structural elements of a negative case are: # introduction # value and criteria # reasons (contentions) # conclusion Building your negative case is very similar to the affirmative case. But since the negative debater will be the second speaker in the round, this must be prepared as a shorter case, leaving time in your speech to attack the affirmative case too. A good rule of thumb is that your negative case should be about half the length of your affirmative case. Again you will need a value and criteria, but again like with the affirmative, this is easiest done if you first pick some case ideas or arguments that you wish to focus on. Then work backwards to figure out the value and criteria that are suggested by these ideas. Negative case ideas "The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts" Now we need to turn around and think about this topic from the negative point of view. All novice debaters need to be able to debate the topic from both sides. The key thing in understanding the negative side is to focus again on the subparts of the topic and to identify weak links. You as the negative debater can pick your battle. You don't have to

attack every subpart of the resolution. Just the key weak points. For example # The topic begins with "the United.States has a moral obligation ..". The negative might select a direct attack and say, "No, no one has a moral obligation." But usually it's a little easier to argue in slightly more indirect ways. For example, the negative might say, why does the U.S. have the moral obligation? Maybe someone has a moral obligation in times of international conflict, but it should not be the U.S. Maybe the U.N. Maybe NATO. Maybe the relevant regional organizations. But not the U.S. The topic then goes on to say "to mitigate international conflicts". The negative might say, not all international conflicts should be mitigated, or the U.S. should not mitigate all conflicts, or we should only mitigate conflicts when we are invited into the situation, or only when no one else will intervene, or only when an independent assessment demonstrates the conflict can be mitigated, or only when a cost-benefit analysis justifies intervention. Or maybe, we should NEVER mitigate conflicts (but this again, would be a tougher argument to succeed with than the others). So far these comments are only directly refuting the affirmative position. This is not enough. It is best to come up with some "lofty ideals" that present the negative position in positive terms too. Here are some suggestions for negative case ideas on this topic: # The rule of law and world order require that the U.S. not

intervene where it is not invited # The sovereignty of all nations requires that one nation not intervene in another, unless under the UN Charter # We are not the world's policemen and we should not act like it # As the world's only superpower we look like the bully on the block if we intervene in international conflicts where we're not involved. It is counterproductive to interfere. The conflict will actually get worse. We have to be less involved, not more involved because of our position as superpower # The basic concept of the social contract and a democratic system is that a government has a moral obligation to its own people, but not to people in other countries. We may assist others from time to time but we have no moral obligation to do so. # To argue that we have a moral obligation to intervene in other nations' problems is really an argument for taking over others' authority and control. This is morally wrong. It is an imperialistic or expansionist doctrine, like the expansion of the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, Hitler's invasion of the rest of Europe, Saddam invading Kuwait, etc. Civilized nations don't do that anymore. # The UN has a moral mandate to mitigate international conflicts wherever they occur but the US should only participate as a member of the UN, pursuant to collective UN decisions. It has no separate moral obligation to act # The U.S. has a moral obligation to help the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the disadvantaged in our own country, not to ignore them and help the needy in other countries instead # We should adopt a utilitarian approach to these matters only take action if the benefits outweigh the costs, and if such an action will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people

The main reasons or case ideas on the negative side could

be 1) helping our own citizens first and 2) not being the "bully" of the world by intervening where we're not wanted, then my VALUE could be AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY and my CRITERIA could be 1) THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and 2) COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS (or utilitarianism). As with the affirmative, the key trick here is to tightly link your contentions to the value and criteria you select, so that the persuasiveness of your case is enhanced. You can select two criteria, making each contention focus on one of them, or you can have one value and one criterion. Let me stop and talk a bit about the social contract and utilitarianism because these concepts may be new to you. Both are very important in Lincoln Douglas debate. You will often encounter them in your debate rounds. Social contract The social contract is the idea that people in a community agree to live by rules and give up some of their individual freedoms in exchange for their government's promise to protect them and to treat them fairly. Thus the government has a "social contract" with the people to serve as their leaders. If the government "violates" the contract and fails to protect the people or fails to treat them fairly, the people should have a right to throw out that government and get a new one. So the government serves at the pleasure of the people for whom it governs. This is basically the principle on which the U.S. Declaration of Independence was founded. In a sense, this is also the basis of the California recall rules that permitted Arnold Swarzenegger to recently take over in that state. The reason the social contract is a powerful concept for the negative in this particular debate topic is that it focuses the responsibilities of a government toward its own people. A government's only right to govern is based on serving those people. If a government forgets about its own people and starts charging around the world in every little conflict, it has

lost its privilege to govern. It has broken the "social contract."

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is based on the idea of providing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. In a world of scarce resources, we can't spend unlimited resources solving all problems. We have to make choices. Utilitarianism basically says that the morally right choice is the one that helps the most people. Cost benefit analysis is somewhat similar, although somewhat different too. It states that a particular action should not be taken unless the benefits outweigh the costs. Both doctrines look at an action from a more practical point of view, supporting the debate argument that a government should not take an action that is not likely to succeed or which, even if successful, comes at too high a cost. Most U.S. Administrations would probably argue that they make all of their decisions to mitigate international conflicts in this kind of pragmatic way - weighing the benefits and costs and only electing to get involved when we think we can make a positive difference. In the case of the war in Iraq, President Bush might say that even though the post-war rebuilding was likely to be very messy and very expensive, the benefits of regime change and counter-terrorism outweighed these costs.

Sample negative case Introduction "I oppose today's resolution because I believe the U.S. has a moral obligation first and foremost to help its own citizens, and to intervene in conflicts outside our country only when success is likely and benefits outweigh costs. Key definitions: Its not necessary to add definitions unless the affirmative debater has offered some abusive definitions that don't make sense] Value and Criteria: My value in today's debate will be AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY. I have two criteria in support of this value: 1. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and 2. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Contentions: My case has two contentions. 1. The Social Contract mandates a moral obligation to mitigate conflict inside the US, but not outside and 2. Applying a cost-benefit analysis, the U.S. has no moral obligation to act if the act won't succeed or if the costs are too high Conclusion In conclusion, I have shown why the value of AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY creates a moral obligation to mitigate conflicts inside the U.S., but not in international conflicts. This can be measured by my criteria of Social Contract and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Substantiating your case with evidence

The final step to building an effective case is to gather evidence to support the value, criteria and contentions. These evidence quotes should be inserted after the major headlines in your case structure. After you read the quote you should explain how it relates to the part of your case you are supporting with it. Usually you should have at least 5 or 6 main evidence cards in your case, and sometimes many more. Some examples of evidence that you could use for some of the contentions, values and criteria mentioned in this analysis are included in the separate evidence link soon to be provided on this site.