Negative Case

[Liana]

I have written a shell for my negative case. Does anyone have any thoughts or critique on this? I am up for anything.



When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.
Value: Personal Happiness Criterion: Use and Maximization of Personal Freedom and Economic Security.

Contention 1: Personal Freedom and Economic Security are symbiotic with each other. They relate to achieve the best Personal Happiness.

Contention 2: Those who are incapable of meeting their basic needs have trouble successfully exercising personal freedom.

Contention 3: Those who are economically secure, but do not have the ability to make choices about how their income is going to be used, are in a form of bondage and are not personally free.

Contention 4: Therefore we need both; you cannot value one over the other because they go together.

[brubaie]

Hi Liana!

This is a very neat angle to take. I'm not very well-versed with the norms of your league but I suspect this argument could be very effective if it comports to your judge's view of an acceptable argument. I will play Devil's advocate for a moment to raise the two most common arguments I suspect you'll face.

The reason I think some judges might be hesitant revolves around the phrase "when in conflict" used in your resolution. The affirmative may say that they are not arguing that the two issues do not intertwine. Instead, they're suggesting that if the two ways of thinking ever present mutually exclusive options and don't intertwine that one ought to be preferred.

The other issue that might be raised is that the argument may be circular. If you are correct and the two issues are never truly in conflict it doesn't disprove that we should value one side *if* the issues conflict, it just suggests a conflict shouldn't arise.

I'm not much of an LD mind so these arguments may be easily defeated but they're the first couple I thought up. I wish you luck preparing your case and am happy to help in any way I can as you develop it!

[Liana]

Hmmmmm...those are very valid arguments. I will have to do some thinking on whether I change my case or figure out a comeback for that. I had not thought of either of those. The question I have though, is do I as the negative have to negate the resolution and the affs case directly, or can I disagree with the resolution? Because if I can just disagree with it, then could I just say it is not true because no matter what, they will never come in conflict? I don't know if that makes sense, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read those arguments.

Thanks for your help!

[Liana]

Well... that didn't work quite like I was expecting, however I did win some rounds with it. But...I am still going to change my neg case. Here is idea 2,009: Resolution: When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security. How about stating that the resolution is an absolute statement, which means that it would be true in ever circumstance. I could bring up instances where it was not true and some theoretical contentions why we cannot agree with this absolute statement. Those contentions are still being formulated.

Does this sound any better? Any thoughts are welcome.