I wanted to use a balanced neg as a strategy for the upcoming state tournament. The idea would be to say that the U.N. should not prioritize either HR over NS or NS over HR but subject decisions to a case-by-case analysis. My criterion would be utilitarianism and the value would be global welfare.Great questions. Here are a couple considerations.
However, teammates have raised up the question of, "How exactly would the U.N. decide to choose HR/NS." They also commented that the balanced neg strategy is evading the question put forth by the resolution and does not properly answer it. What do you think of the strategy? Does it or does it not work? If it does, how would I address the "flaws?"
1. The LD ballot specifically states that the Aff has to prove the resolution true "as a general principle." Same for the Neg. What many Affs are running is a resolutional analysis that in effect adds the words "when in conflict" to the resolution. As a Neg, if I were running a balance case, I'd call them for conditionally affirming.
2. This assumes that "a general principle" means "in the majority of cases." You could grant that the UN will sometimes value NS over HR, or HR over NS, but both scenarios are relatively rare. In most cases, the UN balances its obligations to both by primarily pursuing diplomatic solutions that involve nonintervention. (It has good reasons for doing so, which are the bulk of your case.)
3. The implicit Aff assumption is that it's impossible to truly balance obligations to NS and HR. If you've done the work of warranting #2, then you can either show why their argument is false, or show that their argument is unwarranted. My guess is that beyond #2, they won't have a good reason for why balance is impossible, either logically or empirically.
If these arguments don't convince you, then perhaps you shouldn't run a balance Neg.
Incidentally, the new resolution (for the national tournament) comes out May 15. You can be sure to find analysis here when it's made public.